Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
That does not mean that the patch is bad, and I certainly support the feature change. But I can't efficiently review the patch. If someone else wants to do it, go ahead.

I've finally taken a close look at this patch, and I don't like it any
more than Peter does.  The refactoring might or might not be good at its
core, but as presented it is horrid.  As just one example, it replaces one
reasonably well-commented function with three misnamed, poorly commented
functions.  In place of

Thanks Tom for your time to look on the code and for your feedback. It is very useful for me.

        Thanks Zdenek

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?


Reply via email to