Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > And you are saying that this patch fixes a different problem. The user
> > > reported his problems were fixed by that patch, so I am inclined to
> > > apply it.
> > >
> >
> > I don't agree to apply the patch because the patch makes
> > the current code hardly understandable.
>
> Agreed. I mentioned to Keith I was going to clean it up before
> application. Here is the cleaned up patch.
>
> Hiroshi, what do you think?
>
Hmm that's not what I mean. The patch essentially means
that the STMT_PREMATURE state is unnecessary. Well why is
the concept *PREMATURE* introduced ? What meaning does the
stuff related to the concept *PREMATURE* have ? IMHO we
have to reconsider from the first.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue
