X-Original-To: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 405A9476350 for ; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:00:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2KJ0Mub025201; Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:00:22 -0500 (EST) To: Bruce Momjian Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gerhard_H=E4ring?= , pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: I want to send comments to the backend! In-reply-to: <200303201848.h2KImfn29586@candle.pha.pa.us> References: <200303201848.h2KImfn29586@candle.pha.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:48:41 -0500" Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:00:22 -0500 Message-ID: <25200.1048186822@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Archive-Number: 200303/105 X-Sequence-Number: 3854 Bruce Momjian writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> generalize it to understand about comments. Right now seems to be a >> fine time to think about this, in fact, given that we're hacking the >> protocol anyway. > Yes. On third thought, though, it would be really trivial for pg_exec_query_string to call NullCommand and fall out early if pg_parse_query returns an empty list; it'd take one extra test for NIL, which would be more than compensated for if we got rid of the strspn test. So maybe changing the backend is the best answer after all. regards, tom lane