Re: patch adding new regexp functions

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: patch adding new regexp functions
Date: 2007-02-09 22:46:06
Message-ID: 1171061166.5454.127.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 01:08 -0800, Jeremy Drake wrote:
> Yeah, I try to do that, but this one just barely passed my personal
> compression threshold. Guess I should raise my threshold :)

No, don't pay any attention to me, I'm just lazy :)

> Here is a new version of the patch which fixes up the documentation a
> little (should have read it over again before posting).

The "doing_srf" business is rather tortured, and seems an invitation for
bugs. ISTM there should be a cleaner way to implement this. For example,
would it be possible to put all the common logic into one or more
additional functions, and then have SRF vs. non-SRF cases that call into
those functions after doing the appropriate initialization?

-Neil

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-02-09 22:48:16 Re: Variable length varlena headers redux
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2007-02-09 20:37:02 Re: Proposal: Commit timestamp

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeremy Drake 2007-02-10 00:33:38 Re: patch adding new regexp functions
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2007-02-09 17:02:29 Re: [HACKERS] plpgsql, return can contains any expression