On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Robert Haas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> OK, but how about this wording instead? > > That seems fine. > >> BTW, shouldn't Andrew also be credited here, since he did the work on >> datum sorts? > > Andrew's work was entirely confined to making datum sorts work with > abbreviation, which seems entirely orthogonal (but was enough to make > me want to credit him as an author of abbreviated keys, even after > breaking out his work on numeric support into a separate item). This > particular piece of work has nothing to do with the datum sort case, > though. > > Datum sorts always supported SortSupport. This commit, 5ea86e6e6, > really should have been in 9.2 (especially since it had a net-negative > code footprint and clearly simplified tuplesort), and had nothing to > do with abbreviation -- it went in before abbreviation, and before it > was 100% clear that abbreviation would ever land.
OK, understood, and thanks for the clarification. I've committed the version I proposed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
