On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: >> The two features are highly intermix, so it can only be dependent patches, >> first to add a function infrastructure and probably some support for doubles >> altough it would not be used, then to add doubles & their functions. >> >> A real pain is the documentation, because it means writing a documentation >> with only integer functions, then overwriting it with doubles. This is dumb >> work, really, for the sake of "a cleaner git history", the beauty of it no >> one will ever contemplate... > > FWIW, I care a lot about splitting as much as possible patches where > it is possible to have a clean history. So I would be fine to do a > portion of the legwork and extract from this patch something smaller > that adds only functions as a first step, with the minimum set of > functions I mentioned upthread. Robert, Alvaro, Fabien, does that > sound fine to you?
I'd be delighted. I would really like to get this feature in, but I'm not going to do it if it requires an unreasonable amount of work on my part - and what you propose would help a lot. -- 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
