Hi,
Thanks for the patch. I've spent quite some time reviewing it and the
changes look good to me. It looks very neat and is also
crystal-clear.
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 8:05 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> > Looking at pgc.l, it seems that 'elif' is treated as though it were
> > 'endif' followed by 'ifdef', which of course completely loses the
> > expected property that a previous successful branch would keep the
> > elif branch from being expanded.
> > While this doesn't look terribly hard to fix, I'm a little disturbed
> > by the fact that the existing semantics seem to date back to 1999
> > (b57b0e044). We're probably risking breaking existing app code if
> > we change it. I think we *should* change it, of course, but I'm kind
> > of inclined not to back-patch.
>
> Here's a proposed patch, which also clarifies the documentation,
> which seemed a bit confused/misleading to me.
>
> As stated, I'm not sure it's wise to back-patch this aggressively
> ... but maybe it'd be okay to squeeze it into v13?
>
> regards, tom lane
>