Re: [PATCHES] WIP patch for "operator families"

Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Attached is the current state of my work on generalizing operator classes > into "operator families", as per discussion last week. It's far from > ready to apply, but I thought I'd circulate it for comments. What's done > is ... > Comments? Didn't we say

Re: [PATCHES] WIP patch for "operator families"

Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Didn't we say discussion should happen on -hackers so development progress > would be more visible? 140K patches don't belong on -hackers ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)---

Re: [PATCHES] Patch(es) to expose n_live_tuples and

Is this something we want in 8.3? I am thinking visible/expired would be clearer terms. --- Glen Parker wrote: > This patch consists of two c functions to expose n_live_tuples and > n_dead_tuples, SQL functions to expose th