Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> writes:
> The patch doesn't change what the code aims to do, only the way it
> does it. The existing code does this:
> ...
> The net result /should/ be the same, but the second method is
> apparently a little more robust.
Do we have any idea why? I am always distrustful of random changes made
with no theory as to why they fix a problem. My experience is that such
changes are almost always wrong, once you find out what the problem
*really* is.
regards, tom lane
