Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes
От | Leon |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 37DCFD90.942065B4@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 |
Thomas Lockhart wrote: > > > Thomas Lockhart should speak up... > > 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. > > You talkin' to me?? ;) Nein, nein! Sei still bitte! :) This is my signature which is a week old already :) > A simple fix would be to check the current size after lexing of that > accumulated string buffer, and if it is non-zero then elog(ERROR) a > complaint. Perhaps a more general fix would be to ensure that you are > never in an exclusive state after all tokens are processed, but I'm > not sure how to do that. The solution is obvious - to eliminate exclusive states entirely! Banzai!!! -- 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: