| From: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Justin Clift <jc(at)telstra(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug with view definitions? |
| Date: | 2004-07-02 03:59:01 |
| Message-ID: | 40E4DD85.4020005@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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.
Well it's the work of 5 seconds to have two separate tests. What I
don't feel confident in doing is getting the tests themselves right.
That's why I can't really do it...
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-07-02 04:08:29 | Re: compile errors in new PL/Pler |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2004-07-02 03:45:51 | Re: compile errors in new PL/Pler |