On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:21 AM, Alexander Korotkov <aekorot...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Ah, I see. That's pretty compelling, I guess. Although it still >> seems like a lot of code... > > I think there is a way to merge single-byte and multi-byte versions of > functions without loss in performance using macros and includes (like in > 'backend/utils/adt/like.c'). Do you think it is acceptable in this case?
I'm not sure. I'd like to get a second opinion from someone else on which way to go with this, but unfortunately 2 or 3 of the main committers are on vacation at the moment. Does anyone else have an opinion on what to do about this? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
