On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 4 March 2014 04:18, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I know that patch truncates the values if they are greater than certain >> length (30), but the point is why it is not sufficient to have tuple location >> (and primary key if available) which uniquely identifies any tuple? > > The patch follows a pattern established elsewhere, so arguing for this > change would be a change in existing behaviour that is outside the > scope of this patch. Please raise a new thread if you wish that > change, especially since it is opposed here.
Okay, I very well got this point and I was also not completely sure what is the best thing to do for this specific point, thats why I had asked for opinion of others upthread and there is a mixed feedback about it. I think best thing is to leave this point for final committer's decision and complete the other review/verification of patch. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
