Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Andrew Gierth wrote: > "Tom" == Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: >>> Tom> Right, but we should be trying to move in that direction. I see >>> Tom> your point though that (*) is more notationally consistent with >>> Tom> that case. Maybe we should be looking at trying to implement T641 >>> Tom> in full and then including (*) as a special case of that.
>> I would have liked to have done that, but that would have raised the >> complexity of the project from "Atri can take a stab at this one with >> negligible supervision" to "Andrew will have to spend more time than he >> has conveniently available staring at the raw parser to try and make it >> work". Well, we've never considered implementation convenience to be more important than getting it right, and this doesn't seem like a place to start. (FWIW, the raw-parser changes would be a negligible fraction of the work involved to do it like that.) > Not to mention that, at this stage, we should be looking at reducing the > scope of patches in commitfest rather than enlarge it. I already took it out of the current commitfest ;-). regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers