| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <andrew(at)supernews(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: recovery.conf parsing problems |
| Date: | 2006-12-14 14:41:59 |
| Message-ID: | 1166107319.3882.30.camel@silverbirch.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 13:52 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > It would probably be far easier for long-term maintenance if you
> > > just built an independent lexer, instead of trying to make
> > > guc-file.l serve multiple masters.
> >
> > Will do.
>
> I'm actually not so sure that this is a good idea. The lexical
> structure should be exactly the same, and some things like include
> files might become useful as well, so why should all this be
> replicated?
I assumed the actual lexer would be the same, just the code that invokes
it would be different. I'm happy to do things either way.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-14 15:21:17 | Re: recovery.conf parsing problems |
| Previous Message | Evgeny Gridasov | 2006-12-14 13:32:30 | EXPLAIN ANALYZE on 8.2 |