At Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:00:50 -0400, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in <29430.1469811...@sss.pgh.pa.us> > I wrote: > > Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes: > >> Any work in this area is likely 10.0 material at this point. > > > I'm not really happy with that, since refactoring it again will create > > back-patch hazards. But I see that a lot of the mess here was created > > in 9.5, which means we're probably stuck with back-patch hazards anyway. > > I've pushed Kyotaro-san's original patch, which is clearly a bug fix. > I think the additional changes discussed later in this thread are > cosmetic, and probably should wait for a more general review of the > layering decisions in pqcomm.c.
Agreed. It's not an abstraction or API, but it actually works with no problem and changing it is an issue obviously for later discussion. Anyway thank you for committing this. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
