From: | Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michal Bartak <maxym(dot)srpl(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: CASE control block broken by a single line comment |
Date: | 2024-04-13 03:07:37 |
Message-ID: | mth6piewkdd6bp6neyqvrk47rbfezgookgclqxcauuj5v5q6zr@2jymico7ri2q |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-04-13 00:20 +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
> Erik Wienhold <ewie(at)ewie(dot)name> writes:
> > I'm surprised that the lexer handles compound tokens. I'd expect to
> > find that in the parser, especially because of using the context-aware
> > plpgsql_ns_lookup to determine if we have a T_DATUM or T_{WORD,CWORD}.
>
> I'm not here to defend plpgsql's factorization ;-). However, it
> doesn't really have a parser of its own, at least not for expressions,
> so I'm not sure how your suggestion could be made to work.
Not a suggestion. Just a question about the general design, unrelated
to this fix, in case you know the answer off the cuff. I see that
863a62064c already had the lexer handle those compound tokens, but
unfortunately without an explanation on why. Never mind if that's too
much to ask about a design descision made over 25 years ago.
--
Erik
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2024-04-13 04:06:25 | Re: Introduce XID age and inactive timeout based replication slot invalidation |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2024-04-13 02:25:47 | Re: gcc 12.1.0 warning |