On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > One other thing: #7 does not depend on #3,4,5,6 or any design problems raised > thus far, so there's no need to treat it the same as that group.
Well, if you want to post an updated patch that's independent of the rest of the series, I guess you can... but I think the chances of that getting applied for this release are pretty much zero. That patch relies on some subtle changes to the contract implied by an operator family and what looks at first blush like a lot of grotty hackery. I can't get very excited about spending a lot of time on that right now, especially given the amount of difficulty we've had reaching a meeting of the minds on cases that don't have those problems. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
