Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> 2010/1/20 Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb@cybertec.at>:
>> Attached with the proposed modification to lift the portability concerns.
> I think that it is a very bad idea to implement this feature in a way
> that is not 100% portable.
Agreed, this is not acceptable. If there were no possible way to
implement the feature portably, we *might* consider doing it like this.
But I think more likely it'd get rejected anyway. When there is a
clear path to a portable solution, it's definitely not going to fly
to submit a nonportable one.
regards, tom lane
