Brendan Jurd wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:32 AM, Ron Mayer
> <rm_pg@cheapcomplexdevices.com> wrote:
>> Brendan Jurd wrote:
>>> * AdjustFractionalSeconds => AdjustFractSeconds
>>> * AdjustFractionalDays => AdjustFractDays
>> Otherwise many lines were over 80 chars long.
>> And it happened often enough I thought the shorter name
>> was less ugly than splitting the arguments in many of the
>> places where it's called.
>
> Fair enough. I don't have a strong opinion about that.
Cool. If anyone does have an opinion on that, let me know
and I can change it whichever way people prefer.
>>> There are some very large-scale changes to the regression tests. ...
>> Previously, much (but IIRC not quite all) of the interval output stuff
>> rounded to the hundredths place regardless of how many significant digits
>> there were.
>
> I understood about the rounding issues. I was a bit confused by the
> fact that the patch shows differences for an entire table of results
> from the horology test, but I've just now realised that the whole
> table is different because changing the output precision in some of
> the rows has altered the column width.
>
> Makes me wonder whether an unaligned psql output format would be a
> better choice for the regression tests. It would certainly make for
> clearer diffs. But that's a tangent for another email.
Yeah. And that's what made the patch so big I had to gzip it.
> I don't have any further gripes regarding this patch, apart from the
> code style stuff I sent through in my previous post. Did you have any
> response to those?
Yup - you were right again.
Applied them and updated the website and attaching the patch.
I wonder what's the best way for myself to get out of those habits
in the future? Some lint flags or similar?
