Re: recovery.conf parsing problems

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "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 12:52:05
Message-ID: 200612141352.06217.peter_e@gmx.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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?

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2006-12-14 12:56:14 Re: choosing use an index or not
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2006-12-14 12:19:37 Re: recovery.conf parsing problems