On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 8:51 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 8:11 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I suspect Robert wrote it that way intentionally --- but if so, > > I agree it could do with more than zero commentary. > > Well, the point is, we stop advancing kwend when we get to the end of > the keyword, and *vend when we get to the end of the value. If there's > a value, the end of the keyword can't have been the end of the string, > but the end of the value might have been. If there's no value, the end > of the keyword could be the end of the string. > > Maybe if I just put that last sentence into the comment it's clear enough?
Done that way, since I thought it was better to fix the bug than wait for more feedback on the wording. We can still adjust the wording, or the coding, if it's not clear enough. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
