Re: patch adding new regexp functions

From: Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com>
To: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(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: 2007-02-10 00:33:38
Message-ID: Pine.BSO.4.64.0702091631080.28908@resin.csoft.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Neil Conway wrote:

> 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?

Here is a new version of the patch which eliminates the doing_srf stuff.
It does seem a lot cleaner this way...

--
Fortune's Real-Life Courtroom Quote #18:

Q: Are you married?
A: No, I'm divorced.
Q: And what did your husband do before you divorced him?
A: A lot of things I didn't know about.

Attachment Content-Type Size
regexp-split-matches-documented.patch text/plain 44.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2007-02-10 02:28:53 Re: HOT for PostgreSQL 8.3
Previous Message Tom Lane 2007-02-10 00:31:56 Re: Variable length varlena headers redux

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2007-02-10 06:57:46 Re: patch adding new regexp functions
Previous Message Neil Conway 2007-02-09 22:46:06 Re: patch adding new regexp functions