On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 7:22 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
We are currently very busy and will look at the problem (and dig into
our memory)
later. There is also another ltree patch
(https://commitfest.postgresql.org/23/1977/), it would be
nice if Filip try it.
>
> --
> Thomas Munro
> https://enterprisedb.com
--
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
