Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> That does not mean that the patch is bad, and I certainly support the
>> feature change. But I can't efficiently review the patch. If someone
>> else wants to do it, go ahead.
>
> I've finally taken a close look at this patch, and I don't like it any
> more than Peter does. The refactoring might or might not be good at its
> core, but as presented it is horrid. As just one example, it replaces one
> reasonably well-commented function with three misnamed, poorly commented
> functions. In place of
Thanks Tom for your time to look on the code and for your feedback. It
is very useful for me.
Thanks Zdenek
