Re: [HACKERS] operator_precedence_warning vs make installcheck

2017-02-15 Thread Jeff Janes
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > We could possibly prevent the difference by having exprLocation look > > through such nodes. I'm not sure offhand if there are cases where > > that would be worse than before. We've definitely made some other

Re: [HACKERS] operator_precedence_warning vs make installcheck

2017-02-15 Thread Tom Lane
I wrote: > We could possibly prevent the difference by having exprLocation look > through such nodes. I'm not sure offhand if there are cases where > that would be worse than before. We've definitely made some other > hacks to hide the difference between operator_precedence_warning on > and off.

Re: [HACKERS] operator_precedence_warning vs make installcheck

2017-02-14 Thread Tom Lane
Jeff Janes writes: > make installcheck fails against a server running with > operator_precedence_warning = on. > The difference is in update.out, and consists of an error-locating carat > getting moved over by one position. I've attached the regression diff. > I don't

[HACKERS] operator_precedence_warning vs make installcheck

2017-02-14 Thread Jeff Janes
make installcheck fails against a server running with operator_precedence_warning = on. The difference is in update.out, and consists of an error-locating carat getting moved over by one position. I've attached the regression diff. I don't know why the setting of this GUC causes the carat to