Re: A really subtle lexer bug

Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> "Andrew" == Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
> Andrew> I guess the fix is to extend the existing special case code
> Andrew> that checks for one character left after removing trailing [+-]
> Andrew> and also check for the two-character ops "<>" ">=" "<=" "=>"
> Andrew> "!=".

> Patch attached.
> This fixes two bugs: first the mis-lexing of two-char ops as mentioned
> originally; second, the O(N^3) lexing time of strings of - or +
> characters is reduced to O(N^2) (in practice it's better than O(N^2)
> once N gets large because the bison stack gets blown out, ending the
> loop early).

Looks reasonable offhand (didn't test). A couple of thoughts:

* Some regression tests exercising these code paths might be a good thing.

* There should likely be a comment near where EQUALS_GREATER and
friends are defined, pointing out that if we add any more multi-character
operators with special precedences, this code has to be taught about them.

regards, tom lane