On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Bossart, Nathan <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
> On 12/1/17, 2:03 PM, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks. I think this looks fine now, except that (1) it needs a
>> pgindent run and (2) I vote for putting the test case back. Michael
>> thought the test case was too much because this is so obscure, but I
>> think that's exactly why it needs a test case. Otherwise, somebody a
>> few years from now may not even be able to figure out how to hit this
>> message, and if it gets broken, we won't know. This code seems to be
>> fairly easy to break in subtle ways, so I think more test coverage is
>> good.
>
> Makes sense. I ran pgindent and re-added the test case for v6 of the
> patch.
Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
