Simon Riggs wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> At least as I understand it, it's not our project policy to carry
>> around code that doesn't accomplish anything useful. I have no
>> objection to keeping the field; I simply think that if we're
>> going to have it, we should make it work
> What a stupid conversation.
That hardly seems like a convincing response. Adding a column to a
view when the column contains meaninful values seems less likely to
break things than initially adding it with a different value,
identical to another column, and then changing the semantics.
+1 for either dropping it or making it work.
-Kevin
