On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 2:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> >> Hmm, we were discussing this stuff a few days ago, see >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20170109182800.qrkae62kmur3gfeg@alvherre.pgsql >> >> and commit 3957b58b8885441c8d03bc1cfc00e47cf8cd7975. Part of this code >> >> duplicates that ... >> > >> > Is that bad? >> >> If you are expressing a concern about who wrote this code, I took >> Amit's word for it that he did. > > I'm just saying that the problem at hand is already solved for a related > feature, so ISTM this new code should use the recently added routine > rather than doing the same thing in a different way.
Oh, I see. Amit, thoughts? -- 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
