On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > If other people feel strongly about this issue, then they can weigh in > and we'll see where we end up. If they don't, then there's no > consensus to proceed with this, and we shouldn't *have* to spend a lot > of time on it.
If no one weighs in after a few days, I'll mark the patch "rejected" in the CF app. > Also, I resent the implication that I wrote a deliberately inaccurate > summary of your position. If it was inaccurate, it wasn't deliberate. > More likely, we simply view the situation differently. Please assume > good faith. You wrote "Your conclusion is basically that it's OK to burden everyone who comes along and does future development that may use the sorting code differently from the way it's used now". If you'd like me to assume good faith in these situations, maybe you should be more careful about your choice of words. You statement was extremely broad, unlike the very narrow technical issue under discussion. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
