From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Daniel Verite <daniel(at)manitou-mail(dot)org>, "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, PostgreSQL <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: \if, \elseif, \else, \endif (was Re: PSQL commands: \quit_if, \quit_unless) |
Date: | 2017-03-17 06:18:04 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.20.1703170710320.4278@lancre |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Corey & Tom,
> What is not done:
> - skipped slash commands still consume the rest of the line
>
> That last part is big, to quote Tom:
>
> * More generally, I do not think that the approach of having exec_command
> simply fall out immediately when in a false branch is going to work,
> because it ignores the fact that different backslash commands have
> different argument parsing rules. Some will eat the rest of the line and
> some won't. I'm afraid that it might be necessary to remove that code
> block and add a test to every single backslash command that decides
> whether to actually perform its action after it's consumed its arguments.
> That would be tedious :-(. But as it stands, backslash commands will get
> parsed differently (ie with potentially-different ending points) depending
> on whether they're in a live branch or not, and that seems just way too
> error-prone to be allowed to stand.
ISTM that I've tried to suggest to work around that complexity by:
- document that \if-related commands should only occur at line start
(and extend to eol).
- detect and complain when this is not the case.
- if some border cases are not detected, call it a feature.
ISTM that Tom did not respond to this possibly simpler approach... Maybe a
"no" would be enough before starting heavy work which would touch all
other commands...
Tom?
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-03-17 06:30:20 | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2017-03-17 06:16:07 | Re: [PATCH]: fix bug in SP-GiST box_ops |