Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Yeah, this seems a lot better than the original coding. Maybe I would
> group together the changes that all require the same version test,
> rather than keeping the output columns in the same order. This reduces
> the number of branches. Because the follow-on code uses column names
> rather than numbers, there is no reason to keep related columns
> together. But it's a clear improvement even without that.
Yeah, I thought about rearranging the code order some more, but
desisted since it'd make the patch footprint a bit bigger (I'd
want to make all the related stanzas list things in a uniform
order). But maybe we should just do that.
regards, tom lane
