On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that is true. I spent some time thinking about whether the
> way you used INT_MIN as a sentinel value should be changed around
> somehow, but ultimately I decided that it wasn't too bad and that
> suggesting something else would be pointless kibitzing. I also tried
> to think of scenarios in which this would lose, and I'm not totally
> convinced that there aren't any, but I'm convinced that, if they
> exist, I don't know what they are. Since the patch did deliver a
> small improvement on my test cases and on yours, I think we might as
> well have it in the tree. If some pathological scenario shows up
> where it turns out to hurt, we can always fix it then, or revert if it
> need be.
That seems very reasonable.
I noticed that there is still one comment that I really should have
removed as part of this work. The comment didn't actually add any new
information for 9.5, but is now obsolete. Attached patch removes it
entirely.
--
Peter Geoghegan
