On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Daniel Farina wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote:>
>> Assuming the command in
>> question can be stuffed inside a function, the most you're gaining is
>> a little notational convenience
>
> I can answer that one (why a full-blown mechanism
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 5:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote:>
> Assuming the command in
> question can be stuffed inside a function, the most you're gaining is
> a little notational convenience
I can answer that one (why a full-blown mechanism for a notational convenience).
It has occurred to me to use t
Robert Haas writes:
> Personally, I hate patches that do more than one thing. For me, the
> time required to verify a patch goes as about O(n^2) in its size.
That's exactly why I'm opening that discussion. The main difference
between the approaches I can take is the time it takes to export each
On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Dimitri Fontaine
wrote:
> Either I develop them separately, with separate branches derived from
> the master one, or I develop them as a stack, one on top of the other.
> The difference is my ability to provide a patch for one of the features
> that can be applied
