On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>> I haven't followed this issue all that closely, but to me it seems
>> pretty clear. If the function is brand new to 9.6, buggy, and not even
>> used anywhere, I cannot imagine why we would leave it in the tree.
>
> +1. We should definitely
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:08 PM, Joe Conway wrote:
> On 04/26/2016 07:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Robert Haas writes:
I'm not prepared to commit this over the objection offered by Tomas
Vondra on that thread.
>>>
>>> FWIW, I agree
On 04/26/2016 07:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> I'm not prepared to commit this over the objection offered by Tomas
>>> Vondra on that thread.
>>
>> FWIW, I agree with Peter that we should remove this code. We know that it
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I'm not prepared to commit this over the objection offered by Tomas
>> Vondra on that thread.
>
> FWIW, I agree with Peter that we should remove this code. We know that it
> is buggy. Leaving it there constitutes an "attr
Robert Haas writes:
> I'm not prepared to commit this over the objection offered by Tomas
> Vondra on that thread.
FWIW, I agree with Peter that we should remove this code. We know that it
is buggy. Leaving it there constitutes an "attractive nuisance" --- that
is, I'm afraid that someone will
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> You don't want to remove buggy code that is currently unused simply
>>> because it might be useful to have that functionality in the future?
>>
>> No, I don't want to remove code that
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> You don't want to remove buggy code that is currently unused simply
>> because it might be useful to have that functionality in the future?
>
> No, I don't want to remove code that somebody thinks we should fix
> instead of removing on your sa
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 7:46 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm not prepared to commit this over the objection offered by Tomas
>> Vondra on that thread.
>
> You don't want to remove buggy code that is currently unused simply
> because it might
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:41 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm not prepared to commit this over the objection offered by Tomas
> Vondra on that thread.
You don't want to remove buggy code that is currently unused simply
because it might be useful to have that functionality in the future?
--
Peter Ge
On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The function hyperLogLogMerge() is faulty [1]. It has no current
> callers, though. I propose that we rip it out, as in the attached
> patch.
>
> [1]
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZT-i6R9JU5YXa8MJUou2_r3LfGJZpQ9tYa1BYxfkj0=
The function hyperLogLogMerge() is faulty [1]. It has no current
callers, though. I propose that we rip it out, as in the attached
patch.
[1]
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZT-i6R9JU5YXa8MJUou2_r3LfGJZpQ9tYa1BYxfkj0=c...@mail.gmail.com
--
Peter Geoghegan
From 3b1e6db08412bdadd3ad0d5a
11 matches
Mail list logo
