On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 11:44 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Personally, I have paid no attention to this thread and have no intention > of doing so before feature freeze.
Anything that you missed was likely musings on how to further generalize SortSupport. The actual additions to SortSupport and tuplesort proposed are rather small. A simple abstraction to allow for semi-reliable normalized keys, and a text sort support function to use it. > Perhaps I shouldn't lay my own guilt trip on other committers --- but > I think it would be a bad precedent to not deal with the existing patch > queue first. I think that that's a matter of personal priorities for committers. I am not in a position to tell anyone what their priorities ought to be, and giving extra attention to this patch may be unfair. It doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, though. Attention from a committer to, say, this patch does not necessarily have to come at the expense of another, if for example this patch piques somebody's interest and causes them to put extra work into it on top of what they'd already planned to look at. Again, under these somewhat unusual circumstances, that seems like something that some committer might be inclined to do, without it being altogether unreasonable. Then again, perhaps not. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
