From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
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 17:55:41 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaTo_KCk3LNeiA_k=d3QiA1+kbQFT-7uqXfoT8KdwkQvQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.
Hmm, yeah, maybe. Not sure how ugly it'd be.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-28 18:05:07 | Re: Detection of nested function calls |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-10-28 17:55:23 | Re: Darwin: make check fails with "child process exited with exit code 134" |