Re: New pg_lsn type doesn't have hash/btree opclasses - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: New pg_lsn type doesn't have hash/btree opclasses
Date
Msg-id 20513.1399758739@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New pg_lsn type doesn't have hash/btree opclasses  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: New pg_lsn type doesn't have hash/btree opclasses
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I don't even understand why it's questionable whether this should be
> fixed.

Sigh.  We have some debate isomorphic to this one every year, it seems
like.  The argument why it shouldn't be fixed now is: ITS. TOO. LATE.
Which part of that isn't clear to you?

Or, if you think that this feature is so important that we should slip
the beta schedule to get it in, we can take a vote on that.  But at
this point any slip means no beta till after PGCon.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: New pg_lsn type doesn't have hash/btree opclasses
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation)