RE: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes

When is 6.6 being released? I'm not sure about the greedy lexer, I don't
really know enough to comment, but at first glance, yes fine. The question
is, though, what are possible operators. Do we limit the user-defined
operators in PG to only to a specific subset of characters. Perhaps we
should lex each operator separately, and then get the compiler to construct
logical operators from the physical components that it gets.

MikeA

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Lockhart [mailto:lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu]
>> Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 5:33 AM
>> To: Leon
>> Cc: Tom Lane; pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
>> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes
>>
>>
>> > Thomas Lockhart should speak up - he seems the only person who
>> > has objections yet. If the proposed thing is to be
>> declined, something
>> > has to be applied instead in respect to lexer reject feature and
>> > accompanying size limits, as well as grammar inconsistency.
>>
>> Hmm. I'd suggest that we go with the "greedy lexer" solution, which
>> continues to gobble characters which *could* be an operator until
>> other characters or whitespace are encountered.
>>
>> I don't recall any compelling cases for which this would be an
>> inadequate solution, and we have plenty of time until v6.6
>> is released
>> to discover problems and work out alternatives.
>>
>> Sorry for slowing things up; but fwiw I *did* think about it
>> some more
>> ;)
>>
>> - Thomas
>>
>> --
>> Thomas Lockhart
>> lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
>> South Pasadena, California
>>
>> ************
>>