Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
>> * I do not think we need expr_scanner_chomp_substring. Of the three
>> existing callers of expr_scanner_get_substring, one is doing a manual
>> chomp afterwards, and the other two need chomps per your patch.
> Ok. I thought that I would get a slap on the hand if I changed the initial
> function, but I get one not for changing it:-)
Well, more for not looking at the other caller and noting it needed
this too. Anyway, done with the addition of a "chomp" parameter,
leaving only the TAP test changes to consider.
I'll set the CF entry back to "waiting on author" pending your
revisions of those.
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
