From: | Greg Burd <greg(at)burd(dot)me> |
---|---|
To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add tests for Bitmapset |
Date: | 2025-10-03 12:13:44 |
Message-ID: | 3E15C43D-8FDB-454F-A3E3-182210680C58@getmailspring.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 3 2025, at 4:25 am, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>> On 3 Oct 2025, at 01:36, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 3 Oct 2025 at 01:33, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>>> Another nitpick would be to remove the test for NULL in test_bms_make_singleton
>>> since that is a STRICT function, making the test for NULL
>>> superfluous code:
>>
>> I see test_random_operations() is also strict. Is it worth getting rid
>> of the SQL NULL checks on the inputs there too? Aka, the attached.
>
> Indeed, but reading the code I wonder if STRICT was a mistake and the intention
> was to allow NULL input?
Yes, it was an oversight after I re-worked the random function.
> That being said, the function is never called with
> NULL so that's mostly academic thinking. +1 for removing the NULL
> checks and simplifying the code.
I agree, and thank you both for the attention to detail and interest in
this test suite.
>
> --
> Daniel Gustafsson
best.
-greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2025-10-03 12:17:58 | Re: Problem in 'ORDER BY' of a column using a created collation? |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2025-10-03 12:11:10 | Re: Support getrandom() for pg_strong_random() source |