From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David E(dot) Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: citext operator precedence fix |
Date: | 2011-09-22 18:07:28 |
Message-ID: | 1316714786-sup-8212@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from David E. Wheeler's message of jue sep 22 14:51:59 -0300 2011:
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 10:50 AM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> >> Just write some comparisons like upthread, and see if the output is f or t. Put them into sql/citext.sql.
> >
> > Oh, ok. I thought you meant checking the actual function call.
> >
> > Tests go in the main SQL file? Shouldn't they have their own file?
>
> That is the test file. The main SQL file is citext--1.0.sql. You'll actually need to bump the version number to 1.1, rename that file to citext--1.1.sql, and also add them to a citext--1.0--1.1.sql. There probably also needs to be a citext--unpackaged--1.1.sql file.
Hmm, if there's a citext--unpackaged--1.0.sql and also
citext--1.0--1.1.sql, is it really necessary to have
citext--unpackaged--1.1.sql? Shouldn't the upgrade facility be able to
just run both scripts?
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-09-22 18:09:05 | Re: citext operator precedence fix |
Previous Message | David E. Wheeler | 2011-09-22 17:51:59 | Re: citext operator precedence fix |