| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance - why -- comments only at psql level ? |
| Date: | 2000-02-19 02:37:40 |
| Message-ID: | 10998.950927860@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
> Yuck. They *were* talking about InterBase, but you're right!
> Didn't realize that scan.l had lost (or never did have) the right
> stuff. Will be fixed before we're out of beta...
I've griped about these boundary conditions before, actually ---
although scan.l does the right thing most of the time with comments,
it has problems if a -- comment is terminated with \r instead of \n
(hence gripes from Windows users), and it also has problems if a --
comment is not terminated with \n before the end of the buffer.
There are some other cases where \r is not taken as equivalent
to \n, also.
Am testing a fix now.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2000-02-19 05:14:02 | new backslah command of psql |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2000-02-19 02:24:38 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: SQL compliance - why -- comments only at psql level? |