Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect range in pg_regress comment

From: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 21:46:55
Message-ID: CAGECzQTu+z8Bpau1QU7tRyj3bTBhzZfE-kdDA8SK7hrm1sBVSg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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]. That seems like unnecessary extension churn with little
benefit. So my vote would be to update the comment (as is done in
patch v1).

[1]: https://github.com/citusdata/citus/blob/main/src/test/regress/expected/columnar_lz4_0.out

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2025-02-02 21:56:59 Re: Using Expanded Objects other than Arrays from plpgsql
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-02-02 21:26:38 Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect range in pg_regress comment