Dimitri Fontaine <dfonta...@hi-media.com> writes: > Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: >> The rearrangement might be marginally nicer from a code beautification >> point of view --- right now we're a bit inconsistent about whether >> datatype-specific hash functions live in hashfunc.c or in the datatype's >> utils/adt/ file. But I'm not sure that removing hashfunc.c altogether is >> an appropriate solution to that, not least because of the loss of CVS >> history for the functions. I'd be inclined to leave the core hash_any() >> code where it is, if not all of these functions altogether.
> I guess someone has to talk about it: git will follow the code even when > the file hosting it changes. That might possibly be relevant a year from now; it is 100% irrelevant to a change being proposed for 8.4. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers