Re: NOT {NULL|DEFERRABLE} (was: bug in 7.0)

Tom Lane wrote:

> wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
>
> > It's a kludge too, mucking around with a
>
> > #define yylex() pg_yylex()
>
> > at the beginning, then later #undef'ining it again and
>
> Um. We do *not* insist on bison, and at least one platform that
> I work with would like to keep the option. Please hold off on this.

Oh - O.K. - wrong assumption. Interesting if such a construct
works with other yacc implementations anyway.

> The other alternative that was discussed was to put the onus on
> analyze.c to fix things up. Basically, we could make NOT DEFERRABLE
> and the other subclauses of foreign key clauses be independent
> clauses from the grammar's point of view; that is,
> [...]

Yepp, that was the third possible solution we talked about.
No doubt that it is the best one, and something we both wanna
see at the end. Only that I fear we cannot build it in time
for 7.0 schedule. Thus I assume we have to live 'now' with
either Thomas' kludge (as you called it), restricting order
of constraint clauses and introducing unpleasant "Why doesn't
my query ..." questions, or my crude hack. From the latter
one, I expect far less rumour because that's restricted to
ppl NOT using bison BUT touching gram.y.

At least this one will give us the option to delay the final
solution until 7.1 or until we shuffle up the entire
parser->rewriter->planner/optimizer->executor path. And that
without crippling the syntax from the users PoV.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #