Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think it should be dropped entirely.  The argument against was that
>> it complicated the code in a non-performance-critical path, and that
>> argument isn't going to be different next time.

> I only kept it for 8.4 because I was worried it might be needed for HOT
> performance.

No such argument has been made in my hearing, and I can't imagine why
either of the functions touched by the patch would be more
performance-critical for HOT than they are today.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at


Reply via email to