Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > If we don't revert then what you pushed is clearly necessary, so > no objection to having done that. I'll look at the larger > situation as soon as I get a chance.
Any objections to my pushing the patch I posted Friday to draw a distinction between populated and scannable, which also attempted to address a couple points raised by you, or would you rather the code didn't change at the moment? -- Kevin Grittner 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
