| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andreas Pflug <Andreas(dot)Pflug(at)web(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_get_viewdef 7.4 et al |
| Date: | 2003-04-09 04:14:16 |
| Message-ID: | 4202.1049861656@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgadmin-hackers pgsql-hackers |
Andreas Pflug <Andreas(dot)Pflug(at)web(dot)de> writes:
> here's my proposal for a more economical use of parentheses.
I believe the proposed patch breaks many nontrivial cases (though it's
quite hard to be sure exactly what it does, given a non-contextual diff
:-(). Have you tried running its output back into the system to see
whether the querytree is reconstructed exactly? Don't forget to try
cases where parentheses were used in the original source to force a
non-default evaluation order.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-04-09 08:43:56 | Re: pgadmin3 GTK |
| Previous Message | efesar | 2003-04-08 21:05:30 | Re: pgadmin3 GTK |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-09 05:05:31 | Re: [INTERFACES] More protocol discussion: breaking down query processing |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-09 03:58:19 | Re: Anyone working on better transaction locking? |