On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 02:30:51PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 6:07 PM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coe...@gmail.com> 
> >> wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >> ..
> ..
> >> Why an extra parenthesis in above case whereas not in below case?  I
> >> think the code will look consistent if you follow the same coding
> >> practice.  I suggest don't use it unless you need it.
> >
> > That is because in the 1st case, there are multiple operators (*, +)
> > whereas in the 2nd case we have just one(*). So, just to ensure that
> > '*' is performed before '+',  i had used parenthesis, though it is not
> > required as '*' has higher precedence than '+'. I have removed the
> > extra parenthesis and attached is the new version of patch. Thanks.
> >
> Your latest patch looks good to me.

[Action required within three days.  This is a generic notification.]

The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 10 open item.  Robert,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
item.  If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
v10 open item, please let us know.  Otherwise, please observe the policy on
open item ownership[1] and send a status update within three calendar days of
this message.  Include a date for your subsequent status update.  Testers may
discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
well in advance of shipping v10.  Consequently, I will appreciate your efforts
toward speedy resolution.  Thanks.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to