Re: Rework of collation code, extensibility

From: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Rework of collation code, extensibility
Date: 2023-01-31 23:33:10
Message-ID: c394d313bec551ec968699bc2a248e843ebba785.camel@j-davis.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 2023-01-31 at 11:40 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I don't know to what extent this depends on the abbreviated key GUC
> discussion.  Does the rest of this patch set depend on this?

The overall refactoring is not dependent logically on the GUC patch. It
may require some trivial fixup if you eliminate the GUC patch.

I left it there because it makes exploring/testing easier (at least for
me), but the GUC patch doesn't need to be committed if there's no
consensus.

Regards,
Jeff Davis

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2023-01-31 23:54:31 Re: MacOS: xsltproc fails with "warning: failed to load external entity"
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2023-01-31 23:30:13 Re: recovery modules