I wrote:
> Yeah, we do rely on yylineno in bootscanner.l and ecpg, but not
> elsewhere; not sure if there's a performance reason for that.
Ah: the flex manual specifically calls out "%option yylineno"
as something that has a moderate performance cost. So that's
why we don't use it except in non-performance-critical scanners.
Now, it could be argued that pgbench's script scanner doesn't
rise to that level of performance-criticalness, especially not
if we're paying the cost of counting newlines some other way.
I'm not excited about doing a lot of performance analysis here
to decide that. I think we could steal plpgsql's idea to
keep the code structure basically the same while avoiding the
O(N^2) repeat scans, and that should be enough.
regards, tom lane
