--On Donnerstag, April 07, 2005 20:48:12 -0400 Alvaro Herrera
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One piece of wisdom I've managed to grasp is that when Tom asks for
objections or comments, you better speak very quickly because he codes
way too fast (that, or he posts when the patch is almost ready.)
Hehe
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:27:46AM +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> --On Dienstag, April 05, 2005 16:19:54 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >I've gotten a bee in my bonnet again about Resdom being wasteful.
> >There is no case where Resdom appears without TargetEntry, nor vice
> >versa
--On Dienstag, April 05, 2005 16:19:54 -0400 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I've gotten a bee in my bonnet again about Resdom being wasteful.
There is no case where Resdom appears without TargetEntry, nor vice
versa, so we ought to fold them into a single node type. Is anyone
out there work
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 04:19:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've gotten a bee in my bonnet again about Resdom being wasteful.
> There is no case where Resdom appears without TargetEntry, nor vice
> versa, so we ought to fold them into a single node type.
Gee, I was looking at that code and nearby
I've gotten a bee in my bonnet again about Resdom being wasteful.
There is no case where Resdom appears without TargetEntry, nor vice
versa, so we ought to fold them into a single node type. Is anyone
out there working on a patch that would be seriously affected by
such a change? If so speak up -
