Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think it should be dropped entirely. The argument against was that
> >> it complicated the code in a non-performance-critical path, and that
> >> argument isn't going to be different next time.
>
> > I only kept it for 8.4 because I was worried it might be needed for HOT
> > performance.
>
> No such argument has been made in my hearing, and I can't imagine why
> either of the functions touched by the patch would be more
> performance-critical for HOT than they are today.
OK, removed from 8.4 queue.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +