Re: [HACKERS] pgbench tap tests & minor fixes.

Fabien COELHO <coelho@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