Gavin Sherry writes:
In that case, attached is a patch which locates the beginning of the
offending token more efficiently (per your suggestion of using
scanbuf).
In the regression tests there are a couple of cases that could be
improved:
In strings.sql:
-- illegal string continuation
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In strings.sql:
-- illegal string continuation syntax
SELECT 'first line'
' - next line' /* this comment is not allowed here */
' - third line'
AS Illegal comment within continuation;
ERROR: parser: parse error at or near ' - third line'
On Sun, 18 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In strings.sql:
-- illegal string continuation syntax
SELECT 'first line'
' - next line' /* this comment is not allowed here */
' - third line'
AS Illegal comment within continuation;
ERROR:
Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Reworking the code to taken into account token_start seems to work.
Yes, I did that last night ...
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive
Tom Lane writes:
Character 1 is correct as of the context that the parser is working
in, namely the function body. I don't think we can do much to change
that, but perhaps we could make the message read like
ERROR: parser: parse error at or near not at character 1 of function body
That
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane writes:
Character 1 is correct as of the context that the parser is working
in, namely the function body. I don't think we can do much to change
that, but perhaps we could make the message read like
ERROR: parser: parse error at or near
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Gavin Sherry wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... do we want to modify every 7.2 error message?
Nyet ... but I don't think tacking
Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/cgi-bin/pgpatches
I will try to apply it within the next 48 hours.
---
Gavin Sherry wrote:
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Tom
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... do we want to modify every 7.2 error message?
Nyet ... but I don't think tacking an offset onto the end of
parse error at or near foo messages is likely to cause the
sort of generalized havoc you suggest ...
Gavin, have you answered these issues brought up about the patch?
---
Tom Lane wrote:
Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Attached is a small patch to scan.l for consideration. It hands
yyerror() the position in
Bruce,
I was working on this on the train this morning. There are a few
possibilities I'd like to look at before I submit another patch.
Before I do, there is one important question that I didn't raise when I
submitted the first patch (which was only a proof of concept kind of
patch). Namely:
I don't think anyone will mind, but you can throw a message to 'general'
just to be sure.
---
Gavin Sherry wrote:
Bruce,
I was working on this on the train this morning. There are a few
possibilities I'd like to look
Gavin Sherry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... do we want to modify every 7.2 error message?
Nyet ... but I don't think tacking an offset onto the end of
parse error at or near foo messages is likely to cause the
sort of generalized havoc you suggest ...
I'm on record as favoring a thorough
13 matches
Mail list logo
