On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 5:51 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hehe, I was expecting you to jump on those lines. While looking at the > patch I have simplified it first to focus on the core engine of the > thing. Adding back this code sounds fine to me as there is a wall of > contestation. I offer to do it myself if the effort is the problem.
IMHO, your rewrite of this patch was a bit heavy-handed. I haven't scrutinized the code here so maybe it was a big improvement, and if so fine, but if not it's better to collaborate with the author than to take over. In any case, yeah, I think you should put that back. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers