From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Non-decimal integer literals |
Date: | 2021-11-25 13:17:52 |
Message-ID: | b9d1f3e4-161c-f00c-c259-8391a2a91bd1@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01.11.21 07:09, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Here is an updated patch for this. It's the previous patch polished a
> bit more, and it contains changes so that numeric literals reject
> trailing identifier parts without whitespace in between, as discussed.
> Maybe I should split that into incremental patches, but for now I only
> have the one. I don't have a patch for the underscores in numeric
> literals yet. It's in progress, but not ready.
Here is a progressed version of this work, split into more incremental
patches. The first three patches are harmless code cleanups. Patch 3
has an interesting naming conflict, noted in the commit message; ideas
welcome. Patches 4 and 5 handle the rejection of trailing junk after
numeric literals, as discussed. I have expanded that compared to the v4
patch to also cover non-integer literals. It also comes with more tests
now. Patch 6 is the titular introduction of non-decimal integer
literals, unchanged from before.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v5-0001-Improve-some-comments-in-scanner-files.patch | text/plain | 5.9 KB |
v5-0002-Remove-unused-includes.patch | text/plain | 2.0 KB |
v5-0003-Move-scanint8-to-numutils.c.patch | text/plain | 11.7 KB |
v5-0004-Add-test-case-for-trailing-junk-after-numeric-lit.patch | text/plain | 2.1 KB |
v5-0005-Reject-trailing-junk-after-numeric-literals.patch | text/plain | 5.3 KB |
v5-0006-Non-decimal-integer-literals.patch | text/plain | 28.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrey Borodin | 2021-11-25 13:38:01 | Re: Yet another fast GiST build |
Previous Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-11-25 13:05:43 | RE: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |