Re: replace strtok()
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: replace strtok() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | f867b21c-a3bb-4b35-a697-52c4ee1eee36@eisentraut.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: replace strtok() (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: replace strtok()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 08.07.24 07:45, David Steele wrote: > On 6/24/24 19:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 24.06.24 02:34, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 11:48:21AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >>>> Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes: >>>>> On 18.06.24 13:43, Ranier Vilela wrote: >>>>>> I found another implementation of strsep, it seems lighter to me. >>>>>> I will attach it for consideration, however, I have not done any >>>>>> testing. >>>> >>>>> Yeah, surely there are many possible implementations. I'm thinking, >>>>> since we already took other str*() functions from OpenBSD, it makes >>>>> sense to do this here as well, so we have only one source to deal >>>>> with. >>>> >>>> Why not use strpbrk? That's equally thread-safe, it's been there >>>> since C89, and it doesn't have the problem that you can't find out >>>> which of the delimiter characters was found. >>> >>> Yeah, strpbrk() has been used in the tree as far as 2003 without any >>> port/ implementation. >> >> The existing uses of strpbrk() are really just checking whether some >> characters exist in a string, more like an enhanced strchr(). I don't >> see any uses for tokenizing a string like strtok() or strsep() would >> do. I think that would look quite cumbersome. So I think a simpler >> and more convenient abstraction like strsep() would still be worthwhile. > > I agree that using strsep() in these cases seems more natural. Since > this patch provides a default implementation compatibility does not seem > like a big issue. > > I've also reviewed the rest of the patch and it looks good to me. This has been committed. Thanks.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: