From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Filip Rembiałkowski <filip(dot)rembialkowski(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: fix for BUG #3720: wrong results at using ltree |
Date: | 2019-07-08 04:22:16 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGKVbTGHGpHBX6EGew13CrfYcagThJqBAmeATCMKnVqisQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 3:46 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?Q?Filip_Rembia=C5=82kowski?= <filip(dot)rembialkowski(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Here is my attempt to fix a 12-years old ltree bug (which is a todo item).
> > I see it's not backward-compatible, but in my understanding that's
> > what is documented. Previous behavior was inconsistent with
> > documentation (where single asterisk should match zero or more
> > labels).
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2007-11/msg00044.php
[...]
> In short, I'm wondering if we should treat this as a documentation
> bug not a code bug. But to do that, we'd need a more accurate
> description of what the code is supposed to do, because the statement
> quoted above is certainly not a match to the actual behavior.
This patch doesn't apply. More importantly, it seems like we don't
have a consensus on whether we want it.
Teodor, Oleg, would you like to offer an opinion here? If I
understand correctly, the choices are doc change, code/comment change
or WONT_FIX. This seems to be an entry that we can bring to a
conclusion in this CF with some input from the ltree experts.
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-07-08 04:45:22 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-07-08 04:14:05 | Re: Fix typos and inconsistencies for HEAD (take 5) |