Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > That said, it seems this is something that has to wait for a later > release, I'm putting back in similar logic as there was before (not a > branch, but change the opcode to a non-checking variant).
Yeah, I was wondering if changing the opcode would be preferable to a first-time flag. >> So my recommendation is to drop 0001 and include the same one-time >> checks that execQual.c currently has as out-of-line one-time checks >> in the new code. We can revisit that later, but time grows short for >> v10. I would much rather have a solid version of 0004 and not 0001, >> than not have anything for v10 because we spent too much time dealing >> with adding new dependencies. > Doing that (+README). OK. I believe that we can get this committed after the documentation problems are sorted. I noticed a lot of small things that bugged me, mostly sloppy comments, but I think that the most efficient way to handle those is for me to make an editorial pass on your next version. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers