Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Another new regress test

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane)
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Another new regress test
Date: 1999-03-29 15:51:03
Message-ID: 199903291552.KAA10198@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> (A very short-term answer would be to turn on the checks anyway, and
> put the known exception cases into the expected outputs for the tests.
> That's pretty ugly, not to mention a pain to maintain, but it might be
> a reasonable thing to do if we aren't going to implement a better
> solution soon...)

Or, you could eliminate those types in the WHERE clause.  That may be
easier to maintain.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 1999-03-29 15:59:13
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Parser doesn't grok unqualified array element
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 1999-03-29 15:47:15
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] NULL handling question

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group