| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Mike Blackwell <mike(dot)blackwell(at)rrd(dot)com>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RULE regression test fragility? |
| Date: | 2013-10-28 16:34:57 |
| Message-ID: | 5260.1382978097@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> ... we could leave the parentheses out in
> whichever case it's equivalent to.
Ah, I see what you're getting at now. Yeah, that might be a useful
readability improvement.
> ... I fairly commonly
> write queries that involve multiple UNION ALL branches and, no matter
> how clever we are, having that lead to progressively deeper nesting at
> each level is not going to look nice.
Agreed. I was wondering myself whether we couldn't fix things so that
all the branches are indented the same, even with parens.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-10-28 16:39:03 | Re: Darwin: make check fails with "child process exited with exit code 134" |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-28 16:33:38 | Re: Detection of nested function calls |