On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:18 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 4 March 2014 04:18, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I know that patch truncates the values if they are greater than certain
>> length (30), but the point is why it is not sufficient to have tuple location
>> (and primary key if available) which uniquely identifies any tuple?
>
> The patch follows a pattern established elsewhere, so arguing for this
> change would be a change in existing behaviour that is outside the
> scope of this patch. Please raise a new thread if you wish that
> change, especially since it is opposed here.
Okay, I very well got this point and I was also not completely sure what
is the best thing to do for this specific point, thats why I had asked for
opinion of others upthread and there is a mixed feedback about it.
I think best thing is to leave this point for final committer's decision
and complete the other review/verification of patch.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
