On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 8:51 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 8:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I suspect Robert wrote it that way intentionally --- but if so,
> > I agree it could do with more than zero commentary.
>
> Well, the point is, we stop advancing kwend when we get to the end of
> the keyword, and *vend when we get to the end of the value. If there's
> a value, the end of the keyword can't have been the end of the string,
> but the end of the value might have been. If there's no value, the end
> of the keyword could be the end of the string.
>
> Maybe if I just put that last sentence into the comment it's clear enough?
Done that way, since I thought it was better to fix the bug than wait
for more feedback on the wording. We can still adjust the wording, or
the coding, if it's not clear enough.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com