Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Andrew Gierth wrote:
> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>>> Tom> Right, but we should be trying to move in that direction. I see
>>> Tom> your point though that (*) is more notationally consistent with
>>> Tom> that case. Maybe we should be looking at trying to implement T641
>>> Tom> in full and then including (*) as a special case of that.
>> I would have liked to have done that, but that would have raised the
>> complexity of the project from "Atri can take a stab at this one with
>> negligible supervision" to "Andrew will have to spend more time than he
>> has conveniently available staring at the raw parser to try and make it
>> work".
Well, we've never considered implementation convenience to be more
important than getting it right, and this doesn't seem like a place
to start.
(FWIW, the raw-parser changes would be a negligible fraction of the work
involved to do it like that.)
> Not to mention that, at this stage, we should be looking at reducing the
> scope of patches in commitfest rather than enlarge it.
I already took it out of the current commitfest ;-).
regards, tom lane