From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL |
Date: | 2012-12-03 15:41:21 |
Message-ID: | 50BCC821.1090208@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/03/2012 10:32 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 6:38 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
>>> opt_persistent: PERSISTENT { $$ = TRUE; }
>>> | /*EMPTY*/ %prec Op { $$ = FALSE; }
>>> ;
>>>
>>> I am not sure if there are any problems with above change.
>> We usually try to avoid operator precedence declarations. They
>> sometimes have unforeseen consequences.
> Yes. This is not an improvement over factoring out opt_persistent as
> I recommended previously.
This is by no means the first time this has come up. See
<http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Fixing_shift/reduce_conflicts_in_Bison>
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-12-03 15:41:47 | Re: [v9.3] Row-Level Security |
Previous Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2012-12-03 15:36:12 | Re: [v9.3] Row-Level Security |