| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Justin Clift <jc(at)telstra(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug with view definitions? |
| Date: | 2004-07-02 03:40:03 |
| Message-ID: | 8981.1088739603@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Hmm, is this wrong on line 2085 of src/backend/adt/utils/ruleutils.c:
> need_paren = (PRETTY_PAREN(context) ?
> !IsA(op->rarg, RangeTblRef) : true);
In a quick glance this code seems close to completely brain dead :-(
For one thing, why isn't it making separate determinations about whether
the left and right inputs of the UNION (resp INTERSECT or EXCEPT)
operator need to be parenthesized? After that maybe we could figure out
what the individual decisions need to be.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2004-07-02 03:45:51 | Re: compile errors in new PL/Pler |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-07-02 03:36:34 | Re: Bug with view definitions? |