Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Anyway, now I attached a patch, where I filled the section but without
> referring it from anywhere. The rules itself are now equal. Is that OK?
Well, you also have to track the state changes (BEGIN).
In comparing the scanners I realized I'd forgotten to sync psql myself
when I was fooling around with the plpgsql scanner :-(. So mea culpa
as well ...
Fixed and applied.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-09-27 03:43:42|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] libpq port number handling |
|Previous:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2009-09-27 02:57:49|
|Subject: Re: Hot Standby on git|
pgsql-committers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-09-27 03:43:10|
|Subject: pgsql: Make libpq reject non-numeric and out-of-range port numbers with |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2009-09-27 03:27:24|
|Subject: pgsql: Sync psql's scanner with recent changes in backend scanner's flex |