Re: Two small patches for the isolationtester lexer

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Two small patches for the isolationtester lexer
Date: 2018-02-21 21:12:28
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> On 21 Feb 2018, at 21:41, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I can't think of one; but I wonder if it's worth working a bit harder and
>> removing the fixed limit altogether, probably by using a PQExpBuffer.
>> If you've hit 1024 today, somebody will bump up against 2048 tomorrow.

> The thought did cross my mind, but I opted for the simple hack first. I can
> take a stab at using a PQExpBuffer to see where that leads.

Another idea is just to teach addlitchar to realloc the buffer bigger
when necessary.

> I also (again) forgot about the # comments not being allowed inside setup and
> teardown blocks, so patch 0002 proposes adding support for these as the
> documentation implies. Since SQL comments will be counted towards the line
> buffer, and sent with the command, supporting both kinds of comments seems
> reasonable and consistent.
>> Hmm, not sure this is a good idea. # is a valid SQL operator name, so
>> doing this would create some risk of breaking legal queries. Admittedly,
>> those operators are rare enough that maybe nobody would ever need them in
>> isolationtester scripts, but I'm not sure that providing an additional
>> way to spell "comment" is worth that.

> Good point, didn’t think about that.

> cheers ./daniel

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message R, Siva 2018-02-21 22:41:33 Re: Duplicate Item Pointers in Gin index
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-02-21 21:10:02 Re: Two small patches for the isolationtester lexer