> On 01 Mar 2018, at 06:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> I agree, patch 0002 was broken and the correct fix is a much bigger project -
>> one too big for me to tackle right now (but hopefully at some point in the
>> near
>> future). Thanks for the review of it though!
>
> OK
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 22 Feb 2018, at 05:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Actually, looking closer, this would also trigger on '#' used inside a
>> SQL literal, which seems to move the problem cases into the "pretty
>> likely" category instead of the "far-fetched" one. So I'd only be OK
>> with i
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> On 22 Feb 2018, at 05:12, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Another idea is just to teach addlitchar to realloc the buffer bigger
>> when necessary.
> I think this is the best approach for the task, the attached patch changes the
> static allocation to instead realloc when required
> On 22 Feb 2018, at 05:10, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I wrote;
>> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>>> I also (again) forgot about the # comments not being allowed inside setup
>>> and
>>> teardown blocks, so patch 0002 proposes adding support for these as the
>>> documentation implies.
>
>> Hmm, not sure
> On 22 Feb 2018, at 05:12, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> On 21 Feb 2018, at 21:41, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I can't think of one; but I wonder if it's worth working a bit harder and
>>> removing the fixed limit altogether, probably by using a PQExpBuffer.
>>> If you've hit 1024 t
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> On 21 Feb 2018, at 21:41, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I can't think of one; but I wonder if it's worth working a bit harder and
>> removing the fixed limit altogether, probably by using a PQExpBuffer.
>> If you've hit 1024 today, somebody will bump up against 2048 tomorrow.
>
I wrote;
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> I also (again) forgot about the # comments not being allowed inside setup and
>> teardown blocks, so patch 0002 proposes adding support for these as the
>> documentation implies.
> Hmm, not sure this is a good idea. # is a valid SQL operator name, so
> doi
> On 21 Feb 2018, at 21:41, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson writes:
>> When writing an isolation testcase recently I bumped into the 1024 line
>> buffer
>> size limit in the lexer for my setup block. Adding some stored procedures to
>> the test makes it quite easy to break 1024 character
Daniel Gustafsson writes:
> When writing an isolation testcase recently I bumped into the 1024 line buffer
> size limit in the lexer for my setup block. Adding some stored procedures to
> the test makes it quite easy to break 1024 characters, and while these could
> be
> added as steps it, it’s
