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@alumni.caltech.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 5:33 AM
>> To: Leon
>> Cc: Tom Lane; pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.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@alumni.caltech.edu
>> South Pasadena, California
>> 
>> ************
>>