Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: revised patch for PL/PgSQL table functions

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: revised patch for PL/PgSQL table functions
Date: 2002-08-29 07:26:25
Message-ID: 87n0r6w2fy.fsf@mailbox.samurai.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> > Here's another improved patch. I got the parser to accept 'RETURN
> > NEXT' properly

> Consider doing it the way that the main parser converts "UNION JOIN"
> into a single token --- viz, there's an outer filter that calls the
> lexer an extra time to look ahead one token when necessary.  Doing this
> in the lexer is really quite messy if you want to do it right (eg,
> deal correctly with comments between the two keywords).

Ah, ok -- thanks for the tip.

I've attached a revised patch: rediffed against CVS HEAD, changed the
RETURN NEXT parsing as suggested by Tom above, and made some more
minor cleanups to PL/PgSQL code.

Cheers,

Neil

-- 
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC

Attachment: plpgsql-srf-36.patch
Description: text/x-patch (52.0 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-08-29 07:45:22
Subject: Proposed patch for qual pushdown into UNION/INTERSECT
Previous:From: Joe ConwayDate: 2002-08-29 06:53:55
Subject: SRF memory mgmt patch (was [HACKERS] Concern about memory management with SRFs)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group