Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I think this may be premature in view of bug #14210. Even if we
>> don't reinstate use of this function to fix that, I'm not really
>> convinced we want to get rid of it; it seems likely to me that
>> we might want it again.
> You pushed a fix for bug #14210 that seems to not weaken the case for
> this at all. Where do you stand on this now? I think that leaving
> things as-is is confusing.
Uh, why? It's not a large amount of code and it seems like removing
it puts a fair-size hole in the symmetry of tuplesort's capabilities.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
