On Mon, Mar 09, 2026 at 01:40:51PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> True, but at the same time it looks as if this routine is wastefully
> written -- I mean, why spend time with a stringinfo here at all? We
> could write this in much simpler form, as in the attached, which is even
> three lines shorter. In fact, before 763aaa06f034, this is exactly how
> this routine was written, and I don't see why it was changed this way.
Yeah, what you are doing here looks like the sensible thing to do.
--
Michael
