Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> writes: > 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. Uh, why? It's not a large amount of code and it seems like removing it puts a fair-size hole in the symmetry of tuplesort's capabilities. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers