On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> The two features are highly intermix, so it can only be dependent patches,
>> first to add a function infrastructure and probably some support for doubles
>> altough it would not be used, then to add doubles & their functions.
>> A real pain is the documentation, because it means writing a documentation
>> with only integer functions, then overwriting it with doubles. This is dumb
>> work, really, for the sake of "a cleaner git history", the beauty of it no
>> one will ever contemplate...
> FWIW, I care a lot about splitting as much as possible patches where
> it is possible to have a clean history. So I would be fine to do a
> portion of the legwork and extract from this patch something smaller
> that adds only functions as a first step, with the minimum set of
> functions I mentioned upthread. Robert, Alvaro, Fabien, does that
> sound fine to you?

I'd be delighted.  I would really like to get this feature in, but I'm
not going to do it if it requires an unreasonable amount of work on my
part - and what you propose would help a lot.

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