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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Michael Paquier 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
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 Objection withdrawn.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 s
Jelte Fennema-Nio writes:
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 at 22:26, Tom Lane 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 upd
On Sun, 2 Feb 2025 at 22:26, Tom Lane 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
Ilia Evdokimov 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 numb
