On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 3:46 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > =?UTF-8?Q?Filip_Rembia=C5=82kowski?= <filip.rembialkow...@gmail.com> writes: > > Here is my attempt to fix a 12-years old ltree bug (which is a todo item). > > I see it's not backward-compatible, but in my understanding that's > > what is documented. Previous behavior was inconsistent with > > documentation (where single asterisk should match zero or more > > labels). > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2007-11/msg00044.php
[...] > In short, I'm wondering if we should treat this as a documentation > bug not a code bug. But to do that, we'd need a more accurate > description of what the code is supposed to do, because the statement > quoted above is certainly not a match to the actual behavior. This patch doesn't apply. More importantly, it seems like we don't have a consensus on whether we want it. Teodor, Oleg, would you like to offer an opinion here? If I understand correctly, the choices are doc change, code/comment change or WONT_FIX. This seems to be an entry that we can bring to a conclusion in this CF with some input from the ltree experts. -- Thomas Munro https://enterprisedb.com