Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> In fact, I'm going to go further and say that I do not like the entire >> concept of scannability, either as to design or implementation, and >> I think we should just plain rip it out.
> This has been my feeling from the beginning, so I'm happy to support > this position. I think the current version - where scan-ability is > tracked in just one way - is an improvement over the previous version > of the patch - where it was tracked in two different ways with a > confusing shuffle of information from one place to the other. But my > favorite number of places to track it would be zero. To be clear, I think we'll end up tracking some notion of scannability eventually. I just don't think the current notion is sufficiently baked to want to promise to be upward-compatible with it in future. 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