On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> PFA my proposal for comment changes for 9.5 and master. This is based >>> on your 0001, but I edited somewhat. Please let me know your >>> thoughts. I am not willing to go further and rearrange actual code in >>> 9.5 at this point; it just isn't necessary. >> >> Fine by me. But this revision hasn't made the important point at all >> -- which is that 0002 is safe. That's a stronger guarantee than the >> abbreviated key representation being pass-by-value. > > Right. I don't think that we should back-patch that stuff into 9.5.
OK, so I've gone ahead and committed and back-patched that. Can you please rebase and repost the remainder as a 9.6 proposal? Thanks, -- 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
