| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgbf(at)twiska(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: XversionUpgrade tests broken by postfix operator removal |
| Date: | 2020-09-18 20:44:29 |
| Message-ID: | 541680.1600461869@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 9/18/20 4:25 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hmm, that's not a postfix operator ... oh, it's because it depends on the
>> numeric_fac function alias which we also removed. We could eliminate
>> the need to drop it if we changed the definition to use "factorial"
>> instead of "numeric_fac" in all the back branches. Not sure if that's
>> a better solution or not. Might be worth doing, because in the older
>> branches that's the only user-defined prefix operator, so we're missing
>> some pg_upgrade test coverage if we just drop it.
> Yeah, probably worth doing. It's a small enough change and it's only in
> the test suite.
OK, I'll go take care of that in a bit.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-18 20:48:25 | Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2020-09-18 20:31:33 | Re: XversionUpgrade tests broken by postfix operator removal |