On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:44, Alexey Klyukin <alexk@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:45 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 15:48, Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 13:04, Alexey Klyukin <alexk@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:52 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 5:14 AM, Alexey Klyukin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean packing both a string representation and a reference to a single SV * value?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dunno, I'm not a guts guy.
>>>>
>>>> Well, neither me (I haven't used much of the guts api there).
>>>
>>> Find attached a proof of concept that modifies Alexey's patch to do
>>> the above (using the overload example I and others posted).
>> [ ... ]
>>> Thoughts? Should I polish this a bit more? Or do we like the GUC better?
>>
>> So its been over a week with no comments. ISTM there were more people
>> against adding yet another GUC. Barring objection ill finish the
>> missing parts of the POC patch I posted and submit that.
>
> I've played with that patch just today. I found a problem with it, when I tried to use the array in a string context
thebackend segfaulted with: "WARNING: Deep recursion on subroutine "main::encode_array_literal" at -e line 74" just
beforethe segfault. I think the problem is in the regexp check in 'encode_array_literal' (it's obviously reversed
comparingwith the original one),
Yeah, I noticed that after I sent it out :(.
> but it still segfaults after I fixed that.
I seem to recall fixing this post email as well... Can you provide the
function that broke so I can double check? (Or was it part of the
regression test?)
Thanks for taking the time to play with it.
