Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Daniel Farina's message of dom ene 15 08:41:55 -0300 2012:
>> Onto the mechanism: the patch is both a contrib and changes to
>> Postgres. The changes to postgres are mechanical in nature, but
>> voluminous. The key change is to not only remember the position of
>> Const nodes in the query tree, but also their length, and this change
>> is really extensive although repetitive.
> I wonder if it would make sense to split out those changes from the
> patch, including a one-member struct definition to the lexer source,
> which could presumably be applied in advance of the rest of the patch.
> That way, if other parts of the main patch are contentious, the tree
> doesn't drift under you. (Or rather, it still drifts, but you no longer
> care because your bits are already in.)
Well, short of seeing an acceptable patch for the larger thing, I don't
want to accept a patch to add that field to Const, because I think it's
a kluge. I'm still feeling that there must be a better way ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
