Horton

Thread

Commits

  1. Fix incorrect range in pg_regress comment.

  1. [PATCH] Fix incorrect range in pg_regress comment

    Ilia Evdokimov <ilya.evdokimov@tantorlabs.com> — 2025-02-02T18:46:25Z

    Hi hackers,

I noticed that a comment in pg_regress incorrectly states that 
alternative output files can be named filename{_i}.out with 0 < i <= 9. 
However, the actual valid range is 0 <= i <= 9. This patch corrects the 
comment.

The fix is trivial but ensures that the documentation in the code 
accurately reflects the behavior of pg_regress.

Attached is a small patch correcting this.

--
Best regards,
Ilia Evdokimov,
Tantor Labs LLC.

  2. Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect range in pg_regress comment

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2025-02-02T21:26:38Z

    Ilia Evdokimov <ilya.evdokimov@tantorlabs.com> writes:
> I noticed that a comment in pg_regress incorrectly states that 
> alternative output files can be named filename{_i}.out with 0 < i <= 9. 
> However, the actual valid range is 0 <= i <= 9. This patch corrects the 
> comment.

Hmm, our convention is definitely that the numbers start with 1,
so I do not want to make this change.  Maybe we should change
the code instead.

			regards, tom lane

  3. Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect range in pg_regress comment

    Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> — 2025-02-02T21:46:55Z

    On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 at 22:26, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Hmm, our convention is definitely that the numbers start with 1,
> so I do not want to make this change.  Maybe we should change
> the code instead.

That would require any extensions that use the _0.out suffix to update
all those files to use _1.out as the suffix. One such extension is
Citus[1]. That seems like unnecessary extension churn with little
benefit. So my vote would be to update the comment (as is done in
patch v1).

[1]: https://github.com/citusdata/citus/blob/main/src/test/regress/expected/columnar_lz4_0.out

  4. Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect range in pg_regress comment

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2025-02-02T22:01:33Z

    Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl> writes:
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 at 22:26, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Hmm, our convention is definitely that the numbers start with 1,
>> so I do not want to make this change.  Maybe we should change
>> the code instead.

> That would require any extensions that use the _0.out suffix to update
> all those files to use _1.out as the suffix. One such extension is
> Citus[1].

Oh.  I see we did document it as 0-9 in [1], so I guess we're
stuck with that now.  Objection withdrawn.

			regards, tom lane

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/regress-variant.html

  5. Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect range in pg_regress comment

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2025-02-03T00:34:24Z

    On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 05:01:33PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Oh.  I see we did document it as 0-9 in [1], so I guess we're
> stuck with that now.  Objection withdrawn.

Oh.  I didn't know that 0 was accepted.  We learn new things every
day.

Right, let's adjust the comment to reflect what the docs say, as your
patch does.  I presume that Tom will do that..
--
Michael

  6. Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect range in pg_regress comment

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2025-02-03T03:38:32Z

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> Right, let's adjust the comment to reflect what the docs say, as your
> patch does.  I presume that Tom will do that..

If I complain about it I gotta fix it, huh?  Okay, done.

			regards, tom lane

  7. Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect range in pg_regress comment

    Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2025-02-04T00:35:51Z

    On Sun, Feb 02, 2025 at 10:38:32PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> If I complain about it I gotta fix it, huh?  Okay, done.

Thanks.  :D
--
Michael