Re: texteq/byteaeq: avoid detoast [REVIEW]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 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.

Perhaps.  :-)

While you're at it you might commit it.  :-)

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company