Re: Underscore in positional parameters?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Underscore in positional parameters? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1089460.1715697639@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Underscore in positional parameters? (Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Underscore in positional parameters?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, 14 May 2024 at 07:43, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: >> On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 05:18:24AM +0200, Erik Wienhold wrote: >>> Parameter $1_2 is taken as $1 because in rule {param} in scan.l we get >>> the parameter number with atol which stops at the underscore. That's a >>> regression in faff8f8e47f. Before that commit, $1_2 resulted in >>> "ERROR: trailing junk after parameter". > I'm sure that this wasn't intentional -- I think we just failed to > notice that "param" also uses "decinteger" in the scanner. Taking a > quick look, there don't appear to be any other uses of "decinteger", > so at least it only affects params. > Unless the spec explicitly says otherwise, I agree that we should > reject this, as we used to do, and add a comment saying that it's > intentionally not supported. I can't believe it would ever be useful, > and the current behaviour is clearly broken. +1, let's put this back the way it was. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: