On 04.09.24 11:28, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 03.09.24 22:56, Jacob Champion wrote:
>>> The parse_strval field could use a better explanation.
>>>
>>> I actually don't understand the need for this field. AFAICT, this is
>>> just used to record whether strval is valid.
>> No, it's meant to track the value of the need_escapes argument to the
>> constructor. I've renamed it and moved the assignment to hopefully
>> make that a little more obvious. WDYT?
>
> Yes, this is clearer.
>
> This patch (v28-0001) looks good to me now.
This has been committed.
About the subsequent patches:
Is there any sense in dealing with the libpq and backend patches
separately in sequence, or is this split just for ease of handling?
(I suppose the 0004 "review comments" patch should be folded into the
respective other patches?)
What could be the next steps to keep this moving along, other than stare
at the remaining patches until we're content with them? ;-)
