Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> That said, it seems this is something that has to wait for a later
> release, I'm putting back in similar logic as there was before (not a
> branch, but change the opcode to a non-checking variant).
Yeah, I was wondering if changing the opcode would be preferable to
a first-time flag.
>> So my recommendation is to drop 0001 and include the same one-time
>> checks that execQual.c currently has as out-of-line one-time checks
>> in the new code. We can revisit that later, but time grows short for
>> v10. I would much rather have a solid version of 0004 and not 0001,
>> than not have anything for v10 because we spent too much time dealing
>> with adding new dependencies.
> Doing that (+README).
OK. I believe that we can get this committed after the documentation
problems are sorted. I noticed a lot of small things that bugged me,
mostly sloppy comments, but I think that the most efficient way to
handle those is for me to make an editorial pass on your next version.
regards, tom lane
