On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> After studying the proposed patch a bit more, I still think the example
> is good, but the added text doesn't do much to explain your point. If
> I get what your point is, which maybe I don't, I think the attached might
> clarify it better. What do you think of this version?
Robert seemed to want to keep the example short, which I took on
board, but I myself think that your more worked out treatment is
better. I think this revision makes my point very well. I recommend
committing it.
--
Peter Geoghegan