Re: Ltree syntax improvement - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dmitry Belyavsky
Subject Re: Ltree syntax improvement
Date
Msg-id CADqLbzKRP0Dgb4oYKAE1za=7aKiATiyKrsGZ0AAVq9GE5H=eBg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Ltree syntax improvement  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Ltree syntax improvement  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Dear Tomas,

If the C part will be reviewed and considered mergeable, I'll update the plpython tests.

On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 4:49 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Hi,

This patch got mostly ignored since 2019-07 commitfest :-( The latest
patch (sent by Nikita) does not apply because of a minor conflict in
contrib/ltree/ltxtquery_io.c.

I see the patch removes a small bit of ltree_plpython tests which would
otherwise fail (with the "I don't know plpython" justification). Why not
to instead update the tests to accept the new output? Or is it really
the case that the case that we no longer need those tests?

The patch also reworks some parts from "if" to "switch" statements. I
agree switch statements are more readable, but maybe we should do this
in two steps - first adopting the "switch" without changing the logic,
and then making changes. But maybe that's an overkill.


regards

--
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


--
SY, Dmitry Belyavsky

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jesper Pedersen
Date:
Subject: Re: Index Skip Scan
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Removing pg_pltemplate and creating "trustable" extensions