Paul Jungwirth <pj@illuminatedcomputing.com> writes:
> On 7/9/25 08:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1 for merging those two while we still can.
> Patch attached, based on REL_18_STABLE.
> I considered putting the sortsupport functions first, since they have a lower support function
> number, but I thought defining them in the same order as we've been doing was a tiny bit safer.
> Maybe that is superstitious.
Yeah, I'd be inclined to swap them. I dislike code that has no
ordering principle other than feature development order.
LGTM other than that nit. Michael, do you want to do the
honors, or shall I?
regards, tom lane
