| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: record identical operator - Review |
| Date: | 2013-10-03 15:13:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20131003151357.GP2706@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Steve,
Thanks for following-up on this; I had meant to reply much sooner but
other things got in the way.
Thanks again,
Stephen
* Steve Singer (steve(at)ssinger(dot)info) wrote:
> Are there any outstanding issues on this patch preventing it from
> being committed?
> I think we have discussed this patch enough such that we now have
> consensus on proceeding with adding a record identical operator to
> SQL.
> No one has objected to the latest names of the operators.
>
> You haven't adjusted the patch to reduce the duplication between the
> equality and comparison functions, if you disagree with me and feel
> that doing so would increase the code complexity and be inconsistent
> with how we do things elsewhere that is fine.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-03 16:38:59 | Re: logical changeset generation v6.2 |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2013-10-03 15:12:33 | Re: record identical operator |