Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Tom Lane escribió:
>> Indeed, and it fails to get rid of all the dull declarations :-(.
> Right. I don't think we're going to move forward if we only accept
> giant steps at a time, and we simultaneously reject patches that are too
> intrusive.
I'm okay with small steps
Tom Lane escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
> > I think having schemapg.h be autogenerated is a good idea, so I stripped
> > that from Robert Haas' patch. Here's the result. This should be
> > relatively uncontroversial since, well, the controversial stuff has been
> > stripped. The one problem
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> I think having schemapg.h be autogenerated is a good idea, so I stripped
>> that from Robert Haas' patch. Here's the result. This should be
>> relatively uncontroversial since, well, the controversial stuff has been
>>
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> I think having schemapg.h be autogenerated is a good idea, so I stripped
> that from Robert Haas' patch. Here's the result. This should be
> relatively uncontroversial since, well, the controversial stuff has been
> stripped. The one problem is that it introduces more c
