From: | Henrik Pauli <henrik(dot)pauli(at)uhusystems(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #13829: Exponentiation operator is left-associative |
Date: | 2015-12-29 23:59:17 |
Message-ID: | 56831E55.5080401@uhusystems.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 28/12/15 18:11, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Henrik Pauli <henrik(dot)pauli(at)uhusystems(dot)com>
>> wrote:
>>> On 22/12/15 17:00, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> However, pointing the issue out somewhere near Table 9-2. Mathematical
>>>> Operators seems reasonable. The minimum change would just be to call it
>>>> out in the table entry itself:
>>> Might well be enough, not sure. Some parts of the documentation do come
>>> with little "Note" boxes in the text (can't quite remember an exact
>>> example, but I seem to remember there being such), which increase
>>> visibility to such discrepancy more effectively. Might be worth a sentence
>>> or two. I guess if there hasn't been a report before (no idea), people
>>> just don't do this in Postgres and so haven't been bitten by it at all
>> ​Pointing any of this out in a big highlighted comment block seems like
>> overkill.​
> Yeah, given the lack of other complaints, I think a parenthetical comment
> in the table entry is sufficient. Done that way.
>
> regards, tom lane
Excellent, thank you :)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marek.Petr | 2015-12-30 07:43:52 | Re: BUG #13822: Slave terminated - WAL contains references to invalid page |
Previous Message | Feike Steenbergen | 2015-12-29 20:26:59 | Re: BUG #13838: Problem in a table with integer primary key |