On 2022-09-02 Fr 13:56, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> I also wonder if we shouldn't just make ecpg optional at some point. Or even >> move it out of the tree. > The reason it's in the tree is to ensure its grammar stays in sync > with the core grammar, and perhaps more to the point, that it's > possible to build its grammar at all. If it were at arm's length, > we'd probably not have noticed the conflict over STRING in the JSON > patches until unpleasantly far down the road (to mention just the > most recent example). However, those aren't arguments against > making it optional-to-build like the PLs are. > >
That seems reasonable. Note that the buildfarm client would then need an extra build step. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
