Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes
От | Leon |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 37DAE419.91AC6332@udmnet.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Status report: long-query-string changes (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > > * Single lexical tokens within a query are currently limited to 64k > because of the lexer's use of YY_REJECT. I have not committed any > of Leon's proposed lexer changes, since that issue still seems > controversial. I would like to see us agree on a solution. 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. Seems there are only awkward solutions as alternatives. As you probably remember, the proposed change only breaks constructs like 1+-2, which anyone in a sane condition should avoid when programming :) There are more size restrictions there. I noticed (by simply eyeing the lexer source, without testing) that in case of flex lexer (FLEX_LEXER being defined in scan.c) lexer can't swallow big queries. You (Tom and Michael) aren't using flex, are you? -- Leon. ------- He knows he'll never have to answer for any of his theories actually being put to test. If they were, they would be contaminated by reality.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: