On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Bossart, Nathan <bossa...@amazon.com> wrote: > On 12/1/17, 2:03 PM, "Robert Haas" <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Thanks. I think this looks fine now, except that (1) it needs a >> pgindent run and (2) I vote for putting the test case back. Michael >> thought the test case was too much because this is so obscure, but I >> think that's exactly why it needs a test case. Otherwise, somebody a >> few years from now may not even be able to figure out how to hit this >> message, and if it gets broken, we won't know. This code seems to be >> fairly easy to break in subtle ways, so I think more test coverage is >> good. > > Makes sense. I ran pgindent and re-added the test case for v6 of the > patch.
Committed. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
