Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> No, it won't.  The problem is that it should, because the backend will
> >> see that as '42' followed by a $foo$ quote start.
> > Ok, I see what you are saying. This mismatch would only happen on 
> > invalid input, though. I believe that what I did will work on all legal 
> > input.
> I'm unconvinced.  Even if there are not any current syntaxes in which a
> numeric literal can be adjacent to a string literal (I'm not totally
> sure about that), what of the future?  We should solve the problem
> rather than assuming it won't bite us.
> > I think that this might be cured by having psql recognise a legal 
> > identifier or keyword and eating it as a word, rather than treating it 
> > as just another set of bytes in the stream.
> Hm, might work ... will think about it ...

I am a little concerned about adding the overhead of lex to psql.  Right
now, some folks have reported that lex/yacc take a considerable amount
of processing time in the backend as part of a query, and adding that to
psql just to do $$ seems questionable.  Of course, we can alway test and
see what the overhead shows.

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to