From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Hamlin, Garick L" <ghamlin(at)isc(dot)upenn(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: cleaning perl code |
Date: | 2020-04-16 14:34:39 |
Message-ID: | b4d73727-801a-283e-4773-11885542fcbc@2ndQuadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 4/16/20 10:20 AM, Hamlin, Garick L wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 08:50:35AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> It would also be more robust using non-greedy matching:
> This seems more important.
> I don't know how/where this is being used, but if it has input like:
>
> /* one */
> something;
> /* two */
>
> With the old expression 'something;' would be stripped away.
> Is that an issue where this this is used? Why are we parsing
> these headers?
>
It's not quite as bad as that, because we're doing it line by line
rather than on a whole file that's been slurped in. Multiline comments
are handled using some redo logic. But
/* one */ something(); /* two */
would all be removed. Of course, we hope we don't have anything so
horrible, but still ...
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-04-16 14:43:13 | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
Previous Message | Hamlin, Garick L | 2020-04-16 14:20:53 | Re: cleaning perl code |