Thank you for upicking this up. At Wed, 17 Jan 2024 23:47:41 +0100, Daniel Gustafsson <dan...@yesql.se> wrote in > > On 17 Jan 2024, at 21:33, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > > I wrote: > >> However ... I don't like the patch much. It seems to have left > >> the code in a rather random state. Why, for example, didn't you > >> keep all the code that constructs the "newline" value together? > > > > After thinking about it a bit more, I don't see why you didn't just > > s/strncmp/strncasecmp/ and call it good. The messiness seems to be > > a result of your choice to replace the GUC's case as shown in the > > file with the case used on the command line, which is not better > > IMO. We don't change our mind about the canonical spelling of a > > GUC because somebody varied the case in a SET command. > > The original patch was preserving the case of the file throwing away the case > from the commandline. The attached is a slimmed down version which only moves > the assembly of newline to the different cases (replace vs. new) keeping the > rest of the code intact. Keeping it in one place gets sort of messy too since > it needs to use different values for a replacement and a new variable. Not > sure if there is a cleaner approach?
Just to clarify, the current code breaks out after processing the first matching line. I haven't changed that behavior. The reason I moved the rewrite processing code out of the loop was I wanted to avoid adding more lines that are executed only once into the loop. However, it is in exchange of additional complexity to remember the original spelling of the parameter name. Personally, I believe separating the search and rewrite processing is better, but I'm not particularly attached to the approach, so either way is fine with me. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
