On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 10:53 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> PFA my proposal for comment changes for 9.5 and master.  This is based
>>> on your 0001, but I edited somewhat.  Please let me know your
>>> thoughts.  I am not willing to go further and rearrange actual code in
>>> 9.5 at this point; it just isn't necessary.
>> Fine by me. But this revision hasn't made the important point at all
>> -- which is that 0002 is safe. That's a stronger guarantee than the
>> abbreviated key representation being pass-by-value.
> Right.  I don't think that we should back-patch that stuff into 9.5.

OK, so I've gone ahead and committed and back-patched that.  Can you
please rebase and repost the remainder as a 9.6 proposal?


Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to