Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > On 2023-11-28 Tu 10:27, Tom Lane wrote: >> OK. How about rewriting that first para like this?
> LGTM. Thanks.
Thanks for reviewing. While checking things over one more time,
I noticed that there was an additional violation of this precept,
dating back to long before we understood the hazards: SET is
given its own priority, when it could perfectly well share that
of IDENT. I adjusted that and pushed.
regards, tom lane
