OK, now that _a_ bison exists that works, how does this effect our release? I don't see preproc.[ch] in CVS. Do we need this new bison version on postgresql.org because Marc generates these as part of his install script?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 11:10:01AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> BTW, I spent some time looking at the problem, and it seems the issue > >> is not overrun of any bison internal table, but failure to compress the > >> resulting "action table" into 32K entries. This means that the required > > > Ouch! This of course is not so much a problem for ecpg but for the > > backend should we run into the problem there too. > > As of CVS tip a few days ago, the backend's action table was about 27K > entries. So we have some breathing room, but certainly in the > foreseeable future there will be a problem... > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
