Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5
Date: 2009-07-12 15:05:35
Message-ID: 162867790907120805u62086a3eve6006d9b9c3b36c2@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2009/7/12 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2009/7/12 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> If we're going to go for reentrancy
>>> I think we should fix both components.
>
>> when we don't use reentrant grammar, then we cannot use main sql parser in SQL?
>
> It wouldn't be a problem for the immediate application I have in mind,
> which is to re-use the core lexer in plpgsql.  But it does seem like
> it might be a problem down the road as plpgsql gets smarter.
>

it's bad. I thing so integration main parser into plpgsql should be
the most important feature of plpgsql from trapping exception time. I
have to ask - we need it necessary reetrant grammer? We need
integration only in complilation time - for CREATE FUNCTION statement.
Can be nonreetrant grammer problem (but we have to store some info
from validation time somewhere - maybe in probin column) ?

>                        regards, tom lane
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-07-12 15:17:04 Re: concurrent index builds unneeded lock?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-07-12 15:02:32 Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold