Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect range in pg_regress comment

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>
Cc: Ilia Evdokimov <ilya(dot)evdokimov(at)tantorlabs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect range in pg_regress comment
Date: 2025-02-02 22:01:33
Message-ID: 257517.1738533693@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> writes:
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 at 22:26, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Hmm, our convention is definitely that the numbers start with 1,
>> so I do not want to make this change. Maybe we should change
>> the code instead.

> That would require any extensions that use the _0.out suffix to update
> all those files to use _1.out as the suffix. One such extension is
> Citus[1].

Oh. I see we did document it as 0-9 in [1], so I guess we're
stuck with that now. Objection withdrawn.

regards, tom lane

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/regress-variant.html

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mingli Zhang 2025-02-02 22:22:13 Re: Proposal to CREATE FOREIGN TABLE LIKE
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-02-02 21:56:59 Re: Using Expanded Objects other than Arrays from plpgsql