| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 13
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Many of them just seem to have been copied around for no real reason.
Their presence causes (small) risks of hiding actual type mismatches
or silently discarding qualifiers
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/461ea37c-8b58-43b4-9736-52884e862820@eisentraut.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
as determined by IWYU
Similar to commit dbbca2cf299, but for contrib, pl, and src/test/.
Reviewed-by: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/0df1d5b1-8ca8-4f84-93be-121081bde049%40eisentraut.org
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Reported-by: Michael Paquier
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ZZKTDPxBBMt3C0J9@paquier.xyz
Backpatch-through: 12
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Previously, a PostgreSQL-specific callback checked by the regex engine
had a way to trigger a special error code REG_CANCEL if it detected that
the next call to CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() would certainly throw via
ereport().
A later proposed bugfix aims to move some complex logic out of signal
handlers, so that it won't run until the next CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(),
which makes the above design impossible unless we split
CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() into two phases, one to run logic and another to
ereport(). We may develop such a system in the future, but for the
regex code it is no longer necessary.
An earlier commit moved regex memory management over to our
MemoryContext system. Given that the purpose of the two-phase interrupt
checking was to free memory before throwing, something we don't need to
worry about anymore, it seems simpler to inject CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS()
directly into cancelation points, and just let it throw.
Since the plan is to keep PostgreSQL-specific concerns separate from the
main regex engine code (with a view to bein able to stay in sync with
other projects), do this with a new macro INTERRUPT(), customizable in
regcustom.h and defaulting to nothing.
Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CA%2BhUKGK3PGKwcKqzoosamn36YW-fsuTdOPPF1i_rtEO%3DnEYKSg%40mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 11
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Make regex code consistently use named parameters in function
declarations. Also make sure that parameter names from each function's
declaration match corresponding definition parameter names.
This makes Henry Spencer's regex code follow Postgres coding standards.
Author: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Reviewed-By: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WznJt9CMM9KJTMjJh_zbL5hD9oX44qdJ4aqZtjFi-zA3Tg@mail.gmail.com
|
| |
|
|
| |
Backpatch-through: 10
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The stanza to report a "partial" match could overrun the initially
allocated output array, so it needs its own copy of the array-resizing
logic that's in the main loop. I overlooked the need for this in
ca8217c10.
Per report from Alexander Lakhin.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3206aace-50db-e02a-bbea-76d5cdaa2cb6@gmail.com
|
|
|
This module provides a function test_regex() that is functionally
rather like regexp_matches(), but with additional debugging-oriented
options and additional output. The debug options are somewhat obscure;
they are chosen to match the API of the test harness that Henry Spencer
wrote way-back-when for use in Tcl. With this, we can import all the
test cases that Spencer wrote originally, even for regex functionality
that we don't currently expose in Postgres. This seems necessary
because we can no longer rely on Tcl to act as upstream and verify
any fixes or improvements that we make.
In addition to Spencer's tests, I added a few for lookbehind
constraints (which we added in 2015, and Tcl still hasn't absorbed)
that are modeled on his tests for lookahead constraints. After looking
at code coverage reports, I also threw in a couple of tests to more
fully exercise our "high colormap" logic.
According to my testing, this brings the check-world coverage
for src/backend/regex/ from 71.1% to 86.7% of lines.
(coverage.postgresql.org shows a slightly different number,
which I think is because it measures a non-assert build.)
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/2873268.1609732164@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
