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

Re: [Fwd: Re: ruleutils with pretty-print option]

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: ruleutils with pretty-print option]
Date: 2003-07-31 13:37:44
Message-ID: 992.1059658664@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de> writes:
> Now the patch is *really* appended :-)

And rejected.  You cannot assume that an operator is commutative or
associative just because it has a name you think ought to be.
(For a counter-example, it's well known that floating-point addition
is not associative.)

More: if the tree structure for ops of equal precedence looks like
a + (b + c), then it's a near certainty that the user wrote those
parentheses.  Why would you think that removing them is pretty-printing?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-07-31 13:43:21
Subject: Re: Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection
Previous:From: Manfred KoizarDate: 2003-07-31 10:38:23
Subject: Re: Proof-of-concept for initdb-time shared_buffers selection

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