On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: >>> The two features are highly intermix, so it can only be dependent patches, >>> first to add a function infrastructure and probably some support for doubles >>> altough it would not be used, then to add doubles & their functions. >>> >>> A real pain is the documentation, because it means writing a documentation >>> with only integer functions, then overwriting it with doubles. This is dumb >>> work, really, for the sake of "a cleaner git history", the beauty of it no >>> one will ever contemplate... >> >> FWIW, I care a lot about splitting as much as possible patches where >> it is possible to have a clean history. So I would be fine to do a >> portion of the legwork and extract from this patch something smaller >> that adds only functions as a first step, with the minimum set of >> functions I mentioned upthread. Robert, Alvaro, Fabien, does that >> sound fine to you? > > I'd be delighted. I would really like to get this feature in, but I'm > not going to do it if it requires an unreasonable amount of work on my > part - and what you propose would help a lot.
OK, I'll see about producing a patch then for this basic infrastructure, with the rest built on top of it as a secondary patch. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
