On Wed, Aug 23, 2000 at 10:02:02AM +0900, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> > See my other reply about what gets added: the problem is the rewrite
> > rule name, as you guessed.
> >
> > Here's a patch that silently truncates the generated rule name. Unlike
> > tablename or generated sequence name truncation, there's no need in
> > normal operation for the DBA to know the name of this rule, so I didn't
> > put in a NOTICE about the truncation.
> >
> > I found every accurance of _RET in the source that refered to a view rule,
> > and patched them to do the right thing.
>
> Oh, the patch strikes me since it is not "multibyte aware." Are you
> going to put it into the CVS? If so, please let me know after you do
> it so that I could add the multibyte awareness to that.
Well, I meant it to go into CVS, if noone objected. I consider your raising
the multibyte issue sufficent objection to have it held off. No point
patching and repatching.
The problem is that I just chop it off at NAMEDATALEN, which might be
in the middle of a multibyte character, correct?
Ah, I see code in parser/scan.l that does the multibyte aware version
of the chop. Should I just rewrite my patch with that code as a model?
Ross
--
Ross J. Reedstrom, Ph.D., <reedstrm@rice.edu>
NSBRI Research Scientist/Programmer
Computer and Information Technology Institute
Rice University, 6100 S. Main St., Houston, TX 77005
