Robert Haas írta:
> 2010/1/12 Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>:
>> Tom Lane írta:
>>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>>> But it would be broken in very obvious ways, no? It's not like it would
>>>> be silently broken and thus escape testing ...
>>> Well, if we wanted to adopt that approach, we should add the count to
>>> *all* SELECT tags not just a small subset. As the patch stands it
>>> seems entirely possible that a breakage would escape immediate notice.
>> Can you give me an example that would return
>> plain "SELECT" after my new patch? I added
>> one more change to the patch, is it enough to return
>> "SELECT N" in every case now?
> I just tested this, so I can say definitely: no. I hacked psql with
> the attached patch, and if you just do a plain old SELECT * FROM
> table, you get back only SELECT, not SELECT N.
Thanks for testing it, with the attached patch your test case also
returns SELECT N.
Bible has answers for everything. Proof:
"But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more
than these cometh of evil." (Matthew 5:37) - basics of digital technology.
"May your kingdom come" - superficial description of plate tectonics
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Albe Laurenz||Date: 2010-02-02 09:13:42|
|Subject: Re: PG 9.0 and standard_conforming_strings|
|Previous:||From: Jesper Krogh||Date: 2010-02-02 06:03:35|
|Subject: Re: Make TOAST_TUPLES_PER_PAGE configurable per table.|