Re: Call for objections: merge Resdom with TargetEntry

On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:27:46AM +0200, Bernd Helmle wrote:
> --On Dienstag, April 05, 2005 16:19:54 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
> wrote:
>
> >I've gotten a bee in my bonnet again about Resdom being wasteful.
> >There is no case where Resdom appears without TargetEntry, nor vice
> >versa, so we ought to fold them into a single node type. Is anyone
> >out there working on a patch that would be seriously affected by
> >such a change? If so speak up --- this could certainly wait till
> >after you merge.
>
> The viewupdate patch would clearly be affected by this.

You mean _is_ affected by this, I guess. The change was already
committed.

One piece of wisdom I've managed to grasp is that when Tom asks for
objections or comments, you better speak very quickly because he codes
way too fast (that, or he posts when the patch is almost ready.)

(I guess if you are following development closely you should be
subscribed to pgsql-committers.)

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
"Cuando no hay humildad las personas se degradan" (A. Christie)