Re: Ltree syntax improvement

From: Dmitry Belyavsky <beldmit(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan(at)nataraj(dot)su>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Ltree syntax improvement
Date: 2019-07-08 20:21:42
Message-ID: CADqLbzLS1dy9TARVBYR=E+HUwjrAqZAoakFp_vTKWFJK=XF3Rg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Dear Alvaro,

On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 11:16 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:

> On 2019-Jul-08, Dmitry Belyavsky wrote:
>
> > Dear Thomas,
> >
> > Thank you for your proofreading!
> >
> > Please find the updated patch attached. It also contains the missing
> > escaping.
>
> I think all these functions you're adding should have a short sentence
> explaining what it does.
>
> I'm not really convinced that we need this much testing. It seems a bit
> excessive. Many of these very focused test SQL lines could be removed
> with no loss of coverage, and many of the others could be grouped into
> one.
>

I did not introduce any functions. I've just changed the parser.
I'm not sure that it makes sense to remove any tests as most of them were
written to catch really happened bugs during the implementation.

--
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Konstantin Knizhnik 2019-07-08 20:30:06 Re: Built-in connection pooler
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-07-08 20:16:34 Re: Ltree syntax improvement