| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Curious test case added by collation version tracking patch |
| Date: | 2021-04-12 22:47:04 |
| Message-ID: | 3048706.1618267624@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 8:59 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The reason I ask is that this case started failing after I fixed
>> a parse_coerce.c bug that allowed a CollateExpr node to survive
>> in this WHERE expression, which by rights it should not. I'm
>> inclined to think that the test case is wrong and should be removed,
>> but maybe there's some reason to have a variant of it.
> Indeed, this doesn't do anything useful, other than prove that we
> record a collation dependency where it is (uselessly) allowed in an
> expression. Since you're not going to allow that anymore, it should
> be dropped.
OK, I'll go clean it up. Thanks!
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-04-12 23:11:59 | Teaching users how they can get the most out of HOT in Postgres 14 |
| Previous Message | Bryn Llewellyn | 2021-04-12 22:09:48 | Re: Have I found an interval arithmetic bug? |