Re: Ltree syntax improvement
| От | Dmitry Belyavsky |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Ltree syntax improvement |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CADqLbzKRP0Dgb4oYKAE1za=7aKiATiyKrsGZ0AAVq9GE5H=eBg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Ltree syntax improvement (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Ltree syntax improvement
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Tomas,
If the C part will be reviewed and considered mergeable, I'll update the plpython tests.
On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 4:49 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Hi,
This patch got mostly ignored since 2019-07 commitfest :-( The latest
patch (sent by Nikita) does not apply because of a minor conflict in
contrib/ltree/ltxtquery_io.c.
I see the patch removes a small bit of ltree_plpython tests which would
otherwise fail (with the "I don't know plpython" justification). Why not
to instead update the tests to accept the new output? Or is it really
the case that the case that we no longer need those tests?
The patch also reworks some parts from "if" to "switch" statements. I
agree switch statements are more readable, but maybe we should do this
in two steps - first adopting the "switch" without changing the logic,
and then making changes. But maybe that's an overkill.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: