Jeff Janes wrote: > For the bigger picture, I don't think we should not apply this patch simply > because there is something even better we might theoretically do at some > point in the future.
Agreed. > Having used it a little bit, I do agree with Robert > that it is not a gigantic improvement over the current situation, as the > code it replaces is largely mechanical boilerplate. But I think it is > enough of an improvement that we should go ahead with it. To me this patch sounds much like 2eafcf68d563df8a1db80a. You could say that what was replaced was "largely mechanical", but it was so much easier to make mistakes with the original coding that it's not funny. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
