Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Looks reasonable to me, but I'm hardly a Perl monk. Anybody have
>> a different opinion?
> Well, it falsifies the immediately preceding comment, but I think it's
> fine otherwise.
Duh, right, will fix.
This seems appropr
On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 11:40 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Looks reasonable to me, but I'm hardly a Perl monk. Anybody have
> a different opinion?
Well, it falsifies the immediately preceding comment, but I think it's
fine otherwise.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
=?utf-8?Q?Dagfinn_Ilmari_Manns=C3=A5ker?= writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Apparently 5.36 rejiggers warning classifications in a way that breaks
>> one of our test cases. Perhaps we should switch it to some other
>> warning-triggering condition.
> The simplest thing is to actually use sort in voi
Tom Lane writes:
> Apparently 5.36 rejiggers warning classifications in a way that breaks
> one of our test cases. Perhaps we should switch it to some other
> warning-triggering condition.
The simplest thing is to actually use sort in void context,
i.e. removing the `my $x = ` part from the tes
Apparently 5.36 rejiggers warning classifications in a way that breaks
one of our test cases. Perhaps we should switch it to some other
warning-triggering condition.
regards, tom lane
--- Forwarded Message
Date:Wed, 01 Jun 2022 14:08:46 +
From:bugzi...@re
