On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 3:46 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> =?UTF-8?Q?Filip_Rembia=C5=82kowski?= <filip.rembialkowski@gmail.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
