On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I think this may be premature in view of bug #14210. Even if we > don't reinstate use of this function to fix that, I'm not really > convinced we want to get rid of it; it seems likely to me that > we might want it again.
You pushed a fix for bug #14210 that seems to not weaken the case for this at all. Where do you stand on this now? I think that leaving things as-is is confusing. Maybe the new copytup_index() comments should indicate why only a defensive stub implementation is needed in practice. I'm certainly not opposed to that. -- 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
