Don't move parenthesized lines to the left, even if that means they
flow past the right margin.
By default, BSD indent lines up statement continuation lines that are
within parentheses so that they start just to the right of the preceding
left parenthesis. However, traditionally, if that resulted in the
continuation line extending to the right of the desired right margin,
then indent would push it left just far enough to not overrun the margin,
if it could do so without making the continuation line start to the left of
the current statement indent. That makes for a weird mix of indentations
unless one has been completely rigid about never violating the 80-column
limit.
This behavior has been pretty universally panned by Postgres developers.
Hence, disable it with indent's new -lpl switch, so that parenthesized
lines are always lined up with the preceding left paren.
This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent
changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
Commit e529cd4ffa introduced an Assert requiring NAMEDATALEN to be
less than MAX_LEVENSHTEIN_STRLEN, which has been 255 for a long time.
Since up to that instant we had always allowed NAMEDATALEN to be
substantially more than that, this was ill-advised.
It's debatable whether we need MAX_LEVENSHTEIN_STRLEN at all (versus
putting a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS into the loop), or whether it has to be
so tight; but this patch takes the narrower approach of just not applying
the MAX_LEVENSHTEIN_STRLEN limit to calls from the parser.
Trusting the parser for this seems reasonable, first because the strings
are limited to NAMEDATALEN which is unlikely to be hugely more than 256,
and second because the maximum distance is tightly constrained by
MAX_FUZZY_DISTANCE (though we'd forgotten to make use of that limit in one
place). That means the cost is not really O(mn) but more like O(max(m,n)).
Relaxing the limit for user-supplied calls is left for future research;
given the lack of complaints to date, it doesn't seem very high priority.
In passing, fix confusion between lengths-in-bytes and lengths-in-chars
in comments and error messages.
Per gripe from Kevin Day; solution suggested by Robert Haas. Back-patch
to 9.5 where the unwanted restriction was introduced.
Error messages informing the user that no such column exists can
sometimes provoke a perplexed response. This often happens due to
a subtle typo in the column name or, perhaps less likely, in the
alias name. To speed discovery of what the real issue is in such
cases, we'll now search the range table for approximate matches.
If there are one or two such matches that are good enough to think
that they might be what the user intended to type, and better than
all other approximate matches, we'll issue a hint suggesting that
the user might have intended to reference those columns.
Peter Geoghegan and Robert Haas
The hope is that we can use this to produce better diagnostics in
some cases.
Peter Geoghegan, reviewed by Michael Paquier, with some further
changes by me.
Bruce Momjian
Tom Lane
Robert Haas