| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ECPG |
| Date: | 2002-09-22 20:18:23 |
| Message-ID: | 26458.1032725903@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I had a thought about what to do with the ECPG grammar-too-big problem:
rather than depending on a beta release of bison, we could attack the
problem directly by omitting some of the backend grammar from what ECPG
supports. Surely there are not many people using ECPG to issue obscure
utility commands like, for example, DROP OPERATOR CLASS.
I haven't tried this to see just how much we'd have to dike out, but
my guess is that we could push the ecpg grammar down to something that
would get through stock bison without omitting anything anyone's even
remotely likely to miss.
This is, of course, an ugly hack that we'd want to undo once more
capable versions of bison are readily available. But I think it could
tide us over for a release or two.
Comments?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-09-23 00:48:54 | Re: ECPG |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-09-22 20:00:20 | Re: SIMILAR TO syntax (Was: Re: The TODO List (Was: Re: O...) |