Re: texteq/byteaeq: avoid detoast [REVIEW]

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> No, I don't think so. �Has any evidence been submitted that that part of
>> the patch is of benefit?

> I think you might be mixing up what's actually in the patch with
> another idea that was proposed but isn't actually in the patch.  The
> patch itself does nothing controversial.

Oh, I misread Itagaki-san's comment to imply that that *was* in the
patch.  Maybe I should go read it.
        regards, tom lane