Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > How many times do I have to say this: IT IS NOT A REFACTOR PATCH AS
> > REPORTED BY THE AUTHOR, AND PETER HAS NOT REFUTED THAT.
>
> The initial patch was the feature plus some code refactoring included.
> That was what the author said. I asked him to submit the refactoring
> and the feature as two separate patches. What I got was a refactoring
> subpatch that actually made the code longer in terms of lines, which
> must be the very first code refactoring ever to achieve that. I did
> not get a satisfying answer on why that has to be, so I sort of lost
> interest in working with that patch.
Sure, thanks. Here is his reply from the patch author as to why the
patch isn't just refactoring:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-08/msg00103.php
The next email in the thread is two weeks later from the patch author
asking about the status of the patch.
If we don't need the refactoring part, great, but I want to be sure.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
