On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 01:10:04PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes: >> Oops, I was already taking a look at this. I figured it'd just be >> something like the following, although maybe there's a more elegant way. > > Well, the stuff with prev_chars really ought to be skipped as well. > (Yeah, it's probably a no-op, but readers shouldn't have to figure > that out.) > > My thought was that duplicating the logic isn't so bad, as attached.
WFM! -- nathan
