Re: [HACKERS] trouble with rules

jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> It looks to me, that it was taken out only to move
> INTERSECT in the easy way. But this time the easy way is
> IMHO the wrong way.
> Removing a documented, released feature is something that
> causes havy trouble for those who want to upgrade to a
> new version.
> Next time please keep existing syntax/features until
> there is an agreement of the developers team that it has
> to die.

Calm down Jan ;-). I think what happened here is a slightly careless
merge of the 6.3 - based INTERSECT/EXPECT code into the current code.
Not a deliberate removal of a feature, just a foulup.

This does suggest that we need to be more careful when applying patches
developed against old system versions.

> BTW: There is 1 shift/reduce conflict in gram.y (was there
> before I fixed multi action rules). Who introduced that?

Yeah, I'm seeing that too. Same cause perhaps? It seems to have
appeared in rev 2.43, when the INTERSECT/EXPECT code was checked in.

regards, tom lane