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
http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
