| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> |
| Cc: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Non-decimal integer literals |
| Date: | 2021-09-28 15:26:51 |
| Message-ID: | 40c4f3a1-5b15-3e17-763e-18c95affa8e9@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07.09.21 13:50, Zhihong Yu wrote:
> On 16.08.21 17:32, John Naylor wrote:
> > The one thing that jumped out at me on a cursory reading is
> > the {integer} rule, which seems to be used nowhere except to
> > call process_integer_literal, which must then inspect the token
> text to
> > figure out what type of integer it is. Maybe consider 4 separate
> > process_*_literal functions?
>
> Agreed, that can be done in a simpler way. Here is an updated patch.
>
> Hi,
> Minor comment:
>
> +SELECT int4 '0o112';
>
> Maybe involve digits of up to 7 in the octal test case.
Good point, here is a lightly updated patch.
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v3-0001-Non-decimal-integer-literals.patch | text/plain | 25.7 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2021-09-28 15:30:28 | Re: Non-decimal integer literals |
| Previous Message | Darafei Komяpa Praliaskouski | 2021-09-28 15:13:07 | Re: Couldn't we mark enum_in() as immutable? |