| From: | Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug with view definitions? |
| Date: | 2004-07-06 07:51:01 |
| Message-ID: | 40EA59E5.8080709@pse-consulting.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>> need_paren = (PRETTY_PAREN(context) ?
>>> !IsA(op->rarg, RangeTblRef) : true);
>>
>>
>>
>> In a quick glance this code seems close to completely brain dead :-(
>> For one thing, why isn't it making separate determinations about whether
>> the left and right inputs of the UNION (resp INTERSECT or EXCEPT)
>> operator need to be parenthesized? After that maybe we could figure out
>> what the individual decisions need to be.
>
>
> So what are we going to do about it?
>
> Was it one of the pgAdmin guys who wrote it in the first place?
Yep, me. It was still on my radar to fix; not surprising, Tom was faster.
I'll have a look at the "braindead" issue.
Regards,
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2004-07-06 08:11:03 | Re: subtransactions and FETCH behaviour (was Re: PREPARE and transactions) |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2004-07-06 07:38:47 | Re: Point in Time Recovery |