abbreviated version: Sorry, the problem is only the unhandy patch text format, not different opinions how to proceed.
Long version: The v7 patch file already addressed your suggestions, but the file contained serveral (old) local commits, the new ones at the end of the patch text/file.
v7.1 is attached and addresses this issue providing a clean patch file.
V8 will - as mentioned - add missing docs and regression tests, Mike suggested.
VlG-Arne & Marius
--- Marius Timmer Zentrum für Informationsverarbeitung Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster Einsteinstraße 60
mtimm_01@uni-muenster.de
Am 13.01.2015 um 18:52 schrieb Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>:
> On 01/13/2015 06:04 PM, Timmer, Marius wrote: >> -malloc() (StringInfo is used as suggested now). > > There really shouldn't be any snprintf() calls in the patch, when StringInfo is used correctly... > >> @@ -1187,6 +1187,7 @@ explain (verbose, costs off) select * from matest0 order by 1-id; >> Sort >> Output: matest0.id, matest0.name, ((1 - matest0.id)) >> Sort Key: ((1 - matest0.id)) >> + Sort Order: ASC NULLS LAST >> -> Result >> Output: matest0.id, matest0.name, (1 - matest0.id) >> -> Append > > This patch isn't going to be committed with this output format. Please change per my suggestion earlier: > >> I don't like this output. If there are a lot of sort keys, it gets >> difficult to match the right ASC/DESC element to the sort key it applies >> to. (Also, there seems to be double-spaces in the list) >> >> I would suggest just adding the information to the Sort Key line. As >> long as you don't print the modifiers when they are defaults (ASC and >> NULLS LAST), we could print the information even in non-VERBOSE mode. So >> it would look something like: >> >> Sort Key: sortordertest.n1 NULLS FIRST, sortordertest.n2 DESC > > Or if you don't agree with that, explain why. > > - Heikki >