On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> OK, but how about this wording instead?
>
> That seems fine.
>
>> BTW, shouldn't Andrew also be credited here, since he did the work on
>> datum sorts?
>
> Andrew's work was entirely confined to making datum sorts work with
> abbreviation, which seems entirely orthogonal (but was enough to make
> me want to credit him as an author of abbreviated keys, even after
> breaking out his work on numeric support into a separate item). This
> particular piece of work has nothing to do with the datum sort case,
> though.
>
> Datum sorts always supported SortSupport. This commit, 5ea86e6e6,
> really should have been in 9.2 (especially since it had a net-negative
> code footprint and clearly simplified tuplesort), and had nothing to
> do with abbreviation -- it went in before abbreviation, and before it
> was 100% clear that abbreviation would ever land.
OK, understood, and thanks for the clarification. I've committed the
version I proposed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
