| From: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: proposal: function parse_ident |
| Date: | 2015-11-17 00:49:56 |
| Message-ID: | 564A79B4.50106@joh.to |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 9/11/15 12:25 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> new update of parse_ident function patch
Nice! I've certainly wanted something like this a number of times.
Some comments about the v2 of the patch:
- The patch doesn't apply anymore, so it should be rebased.
- The docs don't even try and explain what the "strictmode"
parameter does.
- The comment before the parse_ident function is not up to date
anymore, since "the rest" was removed from the interface.
- I can't immediately grep for any uses of do { .. } while (true)
from our code base. AFAICT the majority look like for (;;); I see no
reason not to be consistent here.
- What should happen if the input is a string like
'one.two.three.four.five.six'? Do we want to accept input like that?
- I haven't reviewed the actual parsing code carefully, but didn't
we already have a function which splits identifiers up? I of course
can't find one with my grepping right now, so I might be wrong.
.m
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-11-17 00:52:34 | Re: Should TIDs be typbyval = FLOAT8PASSBYVAL to speed up CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY? |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2015-11-17 00:30:04 | Re: Conversion error of floating point numbers in pl/pgsql |