On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 10:24:03AM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > Well, Pavel's subsequent reply suggested that he didn't test exactly > this thing, so maybe there's hope.
No hope on that basis, no. > Or maybe not. If Tom thought one branch inside exec_eval_datum() was > going to be too expensive, four isn't going to be better. He was commenting on a proposal equivalent to yours. You might want to reread this thread in its entirety; we're coming full circle. > But I think we're out of time to work on this for this cycle. Even if > my latest idea is brilliant (and it may not be), we still have to test > it in a variety of cases and get consensus on it, which seems like > more than we can manage right now. I think it's time to mark this one > Returned with Feedback, or perhaps Rejected would be more accurate in > this instance. It's not as if this patch raised complex questions that folks need more time to digest. For a patch this small and simple, we minimally owe Pavel a direct answer about its rejection. Thanks, nm -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
