2016-03-19 15:45 GMT+01:00 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Daniel Verite <dan...@manitou-mail.org> > wrote: > >>> But worse than either of those things, there is no real > >>> agreement on what the overall design of this feature > >>> should be. > >> > >> The part in the design that raised concerns upthread is > >> essentially how headers sorting is exposed to the user and > >> implemented. > >> > >> As suggested in [1], I've made some drastic changes in the > >> attached patch to take the comments (from Dean R., Tom L.) > >> into account. > >> [ ... lengthy explanation ... ] > >> - also NULLs are no longer excluded from headers, per Peter E. > >> comment in [2]. > > > > Dean, Tom, Peter, what do you think of the new version? > > Is anyone up for re-reviewing this? If not, I think we're going to > have to reject this for lack of interest. >
Can I do review? Pavel > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
