| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, alexsav23(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #8611: ECPG: unclosed comment "/*" |
| Date: | 2013-11-25 14:34:00 |
| Message-ID: | 10584.1385390040@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 09:53:29PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> I tend to agree with Tom here but I feel like I'm missing something-
>> will this only make things "work" which would fail previously..? We
>> certainly don't want to risk breaking things for existing users, but
>> perhaps it's not possible to have existing code which works and this is
>> only 'loosening' of what we accept.
> We're not exactly loosening but we aligning with what the C compiler accepts,
> if that makes any sense.
What I was concerned about was the fear that previously-working ecpg
programs would be broken by this change. I think what you're saying
is that any such program would have failed anyhow at the compilation
stage --- is that right? If so I withdraw the complaint.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2013-11-25 15:42:30 | Re: BUG #8611: ECPG: unclosed comment "/*" |
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2013-11-25 14:14:46 | Re: BUG #8608: ECPG: sizeof() in EXEC SQL DECLARE SECTION |