From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Non-decimal integer literals |
Date: | 2021-12-01 15:47:09 |
Message-ID: | 0f37d2ec-6689-4d23-7ba5-4d2a73c2666f@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 25.11.21 18:51, John Naylor wrote:
> If we're going to change the comment anyway, "the parser" sounds more
> natural. Aside from that, 0001 and 0002 can probably be pushed now, if
> you like.
done
> --- a/src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/pgc.l
> +++ b/src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/pgc.l
> @@ -365,6 +365,10 @@ real ({integer}|{decimal})[Ee][-+]?{digit}+
> realfail1 ({integer}|{decimal})[Ee]
> realfail2 ({integer}|{decimal})[Ee][-+]
>
> +integer_junk {integer}{ident_start}
> +decimal_junk {decimal}{ident_start}
> +real_junk {real}{ident_start}
>
> A comment might be good here to explain these are only in ECPG for
> consistency with the other scanners. Not really important, though.
Yeah, it's a bit weird that not all the symbols are used in ecpg. I'll
look into explaining this better.
> 0006
>
> +{hexfail} {
> + yyerror("invalid hexadecimal integer");
> + }
> +{octfail} {
> + yyerror("invalid octal integer");
> }
> -{decimal} {
> +{binfail} {
> + yyerror("invalid binary integer");
> + }
>
> It seems these could use SET_YYLLOC(), since the error cursor doesn't
> match other failure states:
ok
> We might consider some tests for ECPG since lack of coverage has been a
> problem.
right
> Also, I'm curious: how does the spec work as far as deciding the year of
> release, or feature-freezing of new items?
The schedule has recently been extended again, so the current plan is
for SQL:202x with x=3, with feature freeze in mid-2022.
So the feature patches in this thread are in my mind now targeting
PG15+1. But the preparation work (up to v5-0005, and some other number
parsing refactoring that I'm seeing) could be considered for PG15.
I'll move this to the next CF and come back with an updated patch set in
a little while.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2021-12-01 15:57:41 | Re: increase size of pg_commit_ts buffers |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2021-12-01 15:44:13 | Re: Update stale code comment in CheckpointerMain() |