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.
--
Peter Geoghegan
