Re: Split-up ECPG patches

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Michael Meskes <michael(at)fam-meskes(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, hs(at)cybertec(dot)at
Subject: Re: Split-up ECPG patches
Date: 2009-08-08 21:29:06
Message-ID: 29782.1249766946@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> The fundamental reason that there's a problem here is that ecpg has
> decided to accept a syntax that the backend doesn't (ie, FETCH with a
> fetch direction but no FROM/IN). I think that that's basically a bad
> idea: it's not helpful to users to be inconsistent, and it requires ugly
> hacks in ecpg, and now ugly hacks in the core grammar as well. We
> should resolve it either by taking out that syntax from ecpg, or by
> making the backend accept it too. Not by uglifying the grammars some
> more in order to keep them inconsistent.

On looking a bit closer at this: I think the reason the core grammar
requires FROM/IN after fetch_direction is to leave the door open for
someday generalizing the fetch count to be an expression, not just an
integer constant. If we made FROM/IN optional, then doing that would
require some ugly syntax hack or other, such as requiring parentheses
around nontrivial expressions. So I'd like to see an actual case made
that there's a strong reason for not requiring FROM/IN in ecpg.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2009-08-09 00:47:18 Re: Lock Wait Statistics (next commitfest)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-08-08 20:57:57 Re: Split-up ECPG patches