Re: RULE regression test fragility?
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: RULE regression test fragility? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20131026160218.GA5279@awork2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: RULE regression test fragility? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: RULE regression test fragility?
Re: RULE regression test fragility? |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-10-26 11:27:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > [ patch for \a\t mode in rules and sanity_check output ] > > Committed with some minor adjustment of the comments. Thanks. > >> +1 (but what are those silly parens in pg_seclabels definition?), > > > That's because it contain several UNION ALLs and ruleutils makes sure > > the order is correct. > > That looks weird to me too, but it's surely not the fault of this patch. > Maybe we should take a look at exactly what ruleutils is doing there. Imo what it does looks sane - it adds parentheses whenever a child of a set operation is a set operation again to make sure the order in which the generated set operations are parsed/interpreted stays the same. Now, we could probably remove that in some more cases (left is SetOp but doesn't have an ORDER BY/LIMIT/...), but it's hard enough to figure out when that's safe that I wouldn't bother. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: