Re: operator_precedence_warning vs make installcheck

From: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: operator_precedence_warning vs make installcheck
Date: 2017-02-15 20:25:05
Message-ID: CAMkU=1xo6Tz4kf_Gsv3LAZ7Qhn6+jjoJV0td7aJsXno5XH=odQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I wrote:
> > We could possibly prevent the difference by having exprLocation look
> > through such nodes. I'm not sure offhand if there are cases where
> > that would be worse than before. We've definitely made some other
> > hacks to hide the difference between operator_precedence_warning on
> > and off.
>
> After some study I concluded the best fix is just to make the AEXPR_PAREN
> node have the same reportable location as its child node to begin with.
> None of the code dealing with precedence errors was using the location
> of the left parenthesis, so there's no good reason to store that.
>
> Pushed a fix along that line.
>
> regards, tom lane
>

Thanks.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2017-02-15 20:33:52 Re: [PROPOSAL] Temporal query processing with range types
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-02-15 20:23:00 Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function