From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: review: psql: edit function, show function commands patch |
Date: | 2010-08-01 02:46:41 |
Message-ID: | 25003.1280630801@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I took a look at this tonight and am a bit mystified by the following bit:
> + /*
> + * PL doesn't calculate first row of function's body
> + * when first row is empty. So checks first row, and
> + * correct lineno when it is necessary.
> + */
> Is that true of any PL, or just some particular PL?
plpgsql has an old bit of logic that deliberately ignores an initial
newline in the function body:
/*----------
* Hack: skip any initial newline, so that in the common coding layout
* CREATE FUNCTION ... AS $$
* code body
* $$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
* we will think "line 1" is what the programmer thinks of as line 1.
*----------
*/
if (*cur_line_start == '\r')
cur_line_start++;
if (*cur_line_start == '\n')
cur_line_start++;
None of the other standard PLs do that AFAIK.
> Is it documented in our documentation?
I don't think so.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-01 03:15:45 | Re: ANALYZE versus expression indexes with nondefault opckeytype |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-08-01 02:31:47 | Re: rbtree code breaks GIN's adherence to maintenance_work_mem |