On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-04-04 08:44:47 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: >> That patch does exactly the same thing as the patch you prefer, just >> does it differently; > > No, it doesn't; as explained above.
I think these few changes are all we need. (attached)
FWIW, I vote also for reverting this patch. This has been committed without any real discussions..
Michael, its a shame to hear you say that, so let me give full context.
The patches under review in the CF are too invasive and not worth the trouble for such a minor problem. After full review, I would simply reject those patches (already discussed on list).
Rather than take that option, I went to the trouble of writing a patch that does the same thing but simpler, less invasive and more maintainable. Primarily, I did that for you, to avoid you having wasted your time and to allow you to backpatch a solution.
We can, if you wish, revert this patch. If we do, we will have nothing, since I object to the other patch(es).
My recommendation is that we apply the attached patch and leave it there.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
