| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Missing docs on AT TIME ZONE precedence? |
| Date: | 2023-11-28 18:34:38 |
| Message-ID: | 155486.1701196478@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 2023-11-28 Tu 10:27, Tom Lane wrote:
>> OK. How about rewriting that first para like this?
> LGTM. Thanks.
Thanks for reviewing. While checking things over one more time,
I noticed that there was an additional violation of this precept,
dating back to long before we understood the hazards: SET is
given its own priority, when it could perfectly well share that
of IDENT. I adjusted that and pushed.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2023-11-28 19:24:57 | Re: Properly pathify the union planner |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2023-11-28 18:34:22 | Re: May be BUG. Periodic burst growth of the checkpoint_req counter on replica. |