On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Daniel Verite <daniel@manitou-mail.org> wrote: >>> But worse than either of those things, there is no real >>> agreement on what the overall design of this feature >>> should be. >> >> The part in the design that raised concerns upthread is >> essentially how headers sorting is exposed to the user and >> implemented. >> >> As suggested in [1], I've made some drastic changes in the >> attached patch to take the comments (from Dean R., Tom L.) >> into account. >> [ ... lengthy explanation ... ] >> - also NULLs are no longer excluded from headers, per Peter E. >> comment in [2]. > > Dean, Tom, Peter, what do you think of the new version?
Is anyone up for re-reviewing this? If not, I think we're going to have to reject this for lack of interest.