On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think this may be premature in view of bug #14210. Even if we
> don't reinstate use of this function to fix that, I'm not really
> convinced we want to get rid of it; it seems likely to me that
> we might want it again.
You pushed a fix for bug #14210 that seems to not weaken the case for
this at all. Where do you stand on this now? I think that leaving
things as-is is confusing.
Maybe the new copytup_index() comments should indicate why only a
defensive stub implementation is needed in practice. I'm certainly not
opposed to that.
--
Peter Geoghegan