Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Andrew Dunstan writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> I wonder if it would be helpful to have a buildfarm option whereby >> it would fetch the latest nightly-snapshot tarball and use that instead >> of a CVS pull. > That is certainly doable. It would be in effect a forced run, because we > would have no n

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: Magnus Hagander wrote: Much as I dislike it, we may need to revisit the idea about putting the flex output files in CVS... Why? This only affects developers building from a CVS pull. You don't need any flex at all to build from a ta

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Andrew Dunstan writes: > Magnus Hagander wrote: >> Much as I dislike it, we may need to revisit the idea about putting >> the flex output files in CVS... > Why? This only affects developers building from a CVS pull. You don't > need any flex at all to build from a tarball. If developers can't >

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Magnus Hagander wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:52, Dave Page wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Greg Smith wrote: I got bit by this tonight as part of testing a patch on CentOS 5, which like RHEL 5 still ships flex 2.5.4. I just wrote a little guide on how to grab a source RP

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:52, Dave Page wrote: > On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Greg Smith wrote: >> I got bit by this tonight as part of testing a patch on CentOS 5, which like >> RHEL 5 still ships flex 2.5.4.  I just wrote a little guide on how to grab a >> source RPM from a Fedora version an

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Greg Smith wrote: > I got bit by this tonight as part of testing a patch on CentOS 5, which like > RHEL 5 still ships flex 2.5.4.  I just wrote a little guide on how to grab a > source RPM from a Fedora version and install it to work around that problem: > http://no

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

I got bit by this tonight as part of testing a patch on CentOS 5, which like RHEL 5 still ships flex 2.5.4. I just wrote a little guide on how to grab a source RPM from a Fedora version and install it to work around that problem: http://notemagnet.blogspot.com/2009/07/upgrading-flex-from-sourc

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Tom Lane wrote: Dave Page writes: It doesn't work in any of my bf animals, or build machines :-( ?? narwhal seems to have gone green. Yeah, the problem is with MSVC, Narwal is a Mingw box. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) T

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Dave Page writes: >> It doesn't work in any of my bf animals, or build machines :-( > > ?? narwhal seems to have gone green. Narwhal is mingw/msys. The misbehaving flex is the one provided by Andrew for use with VC++ (where the aim is to avoid ha

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Dave Page writes: > It doesn't work in any of my bf animals, or build machines :-( ?? narwhal seems to have gone green. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.or

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Dave Page wrote: On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: FWIW, it seems the version that Andrew put up doesn't work in one of my test environments, and also not in at last one of Dave's. I will test it in my second test environment later today to be sure. It doesn't

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Magnus Hagander wrote: > FWIW, it seems the version that Andrew put up doesn't work in one of > my test environments, and also not in at last one of Dave's. I will > test it in my second test environment later today to be sure. It doesn't work in any of my bf ani

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 05:10, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >>> Maybe for the time being we need to think about keeping scan.c in CVS. >>> It's not like scan.l gets updated all that often. >>> >> >> We could if we had to, though it amounts to saying that Windows-based >> developers don'

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Andrew Dunstan writes: > What I have done is built a version of flex 2.5.35 with Cygwin, and > bundled the .exe with the Cygwin DLL (the only other thing it should > need, for our purposes) in a zip file. It can currently be fetched from >

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Andrew Dunstan wrote: Chuck McDevitt wrote: Flex 2.5.33 and bison 2.3 are available from mingw for windows. http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw/files/ Since mingw programs don't need Cygwin installed, these should probably be OK for most Windows people. But if really needed, flex 2.5

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Chuck McDevitt wrote: Flex 2.5.33 and bison 2.3 are available from mingw for windows. http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw/files/ Since mingw programs don't need Cygwin installed, these should probably be OK for most Windows people. But if really needed, flex 2.5.33 could be ported (m4 is

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

> -Original Message- > From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers- > ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane > Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 7:43 PM > To: Andrew Dunstan > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: Well, it looks like there's a reason GnuWin32 hasn't advanced beyond 2.5.4a - after that the flex developers proceeded to make flex use a filter chain methodology that requires the use of fork(). Making it run on Windows without the support of Msy

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Andrew Dunstan writes: > Well, it looks like there's a reason GnuWin32 hasn't advanced beyond > 2.5.4a - after that the flex developers proceeded to make flex use a > filter chain methodology that requires the use of fork(). Making it run > on Windows without the support of Msys or Cygwin wou

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Andrew Dunstan wrote: OK, the fly in this ointment turns out to be MSVC. The latest flex from GnuWin32 is 2.5.4a, and building 2.5.35 for Windows is turning out to be quite a pain. Luckily, MinGW has a pre-built modified 2.5.33 available, and I have installed this (also needed msys-regex),

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Andrew Dunstan wrote: Tom Lane wrote: I see that a good-sized fraction of the buildfarm is still on flex 2.5.4 and will therefore go red when this goes in. Should I hold off a bit longer, or is committing the best way to get their attention? Probably the latter. I will update my vario

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Tom Lane wrote: > Now this disappears into the noise as soon as you include parse > analysis (let alone planning and execution) No need to go for silly options to avoid a performance issue at that level. Time wasted dealing with subsequent silliness would almost certainly have a higher "lost

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Andrew Dunstan writes: > Josh Berkus wrote: >> Oh, I didn't think about the Flex version. That's going to be a far >> more widespread problem. OSX 10.5, for example, still ships with >> 2.5.33. I suspect that a *lot* of OSes won't have anything up-to-date. > That's the version Tom is proposi

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Josh Berkus wrote: This is ready to go except for changing the minimum flex version test in configure (and associated documentation). I see that a good-sized fraction of the buildfarm is still on flex 2.5.4 and will therefore go red when this goes in. Should I hold off a bit longer, or is c

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

This is ready to go except for changing the minimum flex version test in configure (and associated documentation). I see that a good-sized fraction of the buildfarm is still on flex 2.5.4 and will therefore go red when this goes in. Should I hold off a bit longer, or is committing the best way

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Tom Lane wrote: I see that a good-sized fraction of the buildfarm is still on flex 2.5.4 and will therefore go red when this goes in. Should I hold off a bit longer, or is committing the best way to get their attention? Probably the latter. I will update my various members. I see that 2.

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Andrew Dunstan writes: > If we're going to have a reentrant lexer, I think we should go the whole > nine yards. I agree that a couple of percent slowdown on just the lexing > and parsing will be lost in the noise. So +1 from me. I found a couple of places where a few cycles could be shaved. Th

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

2009/7/12 Tom Lane : > Pavel Stehule writes: >> 2009/7/12 Tom Lane : >>> If we're going to go for reentrancy >>> I think we should fix both components. > >> when we don't use reentrant grammar, then we cannot use main sql parser in >> SQL? > > It wouldn't be a problem for the immediate applicatio

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Pavel Stehule writes: > 2009/7/12 Tom Lane : >> If we're going to go for reentrancy >> I think we should fix both components. > when we don't use reentrant grammar, then we cannot use main sql parser in > SQL? It wouldn't be a problem for the immediate application I have in mind, which is to re

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Tom Lane wrote: As best I can tell after some casual testing on a couple of machines, the actual bottom line is that "raw_parser" (ie, the bison and flex processing) is going to be a couple of percent slower with a reentrant grammar and lexer, for typical queries involving a lot of short tokens

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

2009/7/12 Tom Lane : > Andrew Dunstan writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Andrew Dunstan writes: I think it would need to be benchmarked. My faint recollection is that the re-entrant lexers are slower. >>> >>> The flex documentation states in so many words: >>>    The option `--reentrant' do

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Andrew Dunstan writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Andrew Dunstan writes: >>> I think it would need to be benchmarked. My faint recollection is that >>> the re-entrant lexers are slower. >> >> The flex documentation states in so many words: >>The option `--reentrant' does not affect the performanc

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Tom Lane píše v čt 02. 07. 2009 v 13:13 -0400: > > Actually, most of the buildfarm members show which flex version they are > running in the configure output. A quick look shows that of the 45 > members that have reported on HEAD in the past 2 days, 22 are running > 2.5.4, which is a lot higher

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Tom Lane píše v čt 02. 07. 2009 v 13:13 -0400: > I wrote: > > Yes. What I was thinking of doing was committing a configure change to > > reject flex < 2.5.31, and waiting to see how much of the buildfarm goes > > red. > > Actually, most of the buildfarm members show which flex version they are >

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Tom Lane píše v čt 02. 07. 2009 v 11:32 -0400: > Andrew Dunstan writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> Right, this will only affect people doing development or otherwise > >> building from a CVS pull. > > > Of course, that includes the whole buildfarm. We might need to ask some > > people to upgrade

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Peter Eisentraut wrote: > make distprep is what prepares those files. Perfect! Flex files built. No errors. Thanks much! -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > However I'm a bit worried about the situation for Windows --- does > anyone know whether a newer flex is readily available for Windows? > MSYS Suplementary Tools (for mingw) includes flex-2.5.33 http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw/files/ -- At

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

On Thursday 02 July 2009 19:46:04 Tom Lane wrote: > "Kevin Grittner" writes: > > Then I take it back -- the new flex versions would have little or no > > impact on me. Worst case, I might need to download a snapshot to > > apply my patch for testing on the "big" machines. If I understood > > wha

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Tom Lane wrote: > "Kevin Grittner" writes: >> jade -D . -d stylesheet.dsl -i output-text -t sgml -V nochunks >> tempfile_HISTORY.sgml >HISTORY.html >> /bin/sh: jade: not found > > Looks like you're missing openjade. However, that's only used to > produce the HISTORY file which is hardly cr

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

"Kevin Grittner" writes: > I seem to be able to "sneak up on it from behind" by doing a regular > make and then "make distclean" and copying the results. Perhaps > someone knows off-hand what I'm missing that prevents "make dist" from > working. The attempt ends with: > jade -D . -d styleshee

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Tom Lane wrote: > Peter or Marc could clue you in a bit better, but I think it's as > simple as saying "make dist" at the top level of a modified source > tree. This gets you a source tarball the same way the release > tarballs are made. I seem to be able to "sneak up on it from behind" by d

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

I wrote: > Yes. What I was thinking of doing was committing a configure change to > reject flex < 2.5.31, and waiting to see how much of the buildfarm goes > red. Actually, most of the buildfarm members show which flex version they are running in the configure output. A quick look shows that of

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

"Kevin Grittner" writes: > Then I take it back -- the new flex versions would have little or no > impact on me. Worst case, I might need to download a snapshot to > apply my patch for testing on the "big" machines. If I understood > what make options I could use on my machine to create derived f

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Yes, the snapshots have the derived files too. Then I take it back -- the new flex versions would have little or no impact on me. Worst case, I might need to download a snapshot to apply my patch for testing on the "big" machines. If I understood what make options I

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Greg Stark wrote: >> Someone doing a CVS pull already needs a specific recent version of >> autoconf anyways. How old is this version of flex compared to the >> version of autoconf we require? > Really? configure is in CVS, so I don't think

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Greg Stark wrote: >>> Tom Lane wrote: Right, this will only affect people doing development or otherwise building from a CVS pull. > > Someone doing a CVS pull already needs a specific recent version of > autoconf anyways. How old is this version of flex c

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

>> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Right, this will only affect people doing development or otherwise >>> building from a CVS pull. Someone doing a CVS pull already needs a specific recent version of autoconf anyways. How old is this version of flex compared to the version of autoconf we require? -- greg ht

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Kevin Grittner wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Keep in mind that if you build from a tarball, the lexer has already > > been run elsewhere and you don't need flex. > > Does that hold for the daily snapshots? If so, I should be good. Yes, the snapshots have the derived files too. -- A

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Andrew Dunstan writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Right, this will only affect people doing development or otherwise >> building from a CVS pull. > Of course, that includes the whole buildfarm. We might need to ask some > people to upgrade there. Yes. What I was thinking of doing was committing a co

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Keep in mind that if you build from a tarball, the lexer has already > been run elsewhere and you don't need flex. Does that hold for the daily snapshots? If so, I should be good. My workstation is OK on flex version. (I run kubuntu on my desktop.) -Kevin -- Sen

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera writes: Kevin Grittner wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Since 2.5.33 is now over three years old, this does not seem like an onerous requirement, but I thought I'd better ask if anyone has an objection? You'd be causing problems for SuSE Enterp

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Alvaro Herrera writes: > Kevin Grittner wrote: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> Since 2.5.33 is now over three years old, this does not seem like an >>> onerous requirement, but I thought I'd better ask if anyone has an >>> objection? >> >> You'd be causing problems for SuSE Enterprise users, like us: >

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

"Kevin Grittner" writes: > kgri...@ccdev-db:/etc/init.d> flex --version > flex 2.5.31 > Just how broken is the version we're using? You might want to take that up with SuSE. The flex NEWS file just cites "numerous bug and security fixes" from .31 to .33. Our CVS logs show half a dozen changes

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Kevin Grittner wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > > so the new minimum supported version would probably be 2.5.33 > > (2.5.31 was kinda broken for other reasons, and there was no > > 2.5.32). > > > > Since 2.5.33 is now over three years old, this does not seem like an > > onerous requirement, but I t

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: I think it would need to be benchmarked. My faint recollection is that the re-entrant lexers are slower. The flex documentation states in so many words: The option `--reentrant' does not affect the performance of the scanner. Do you f

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Andrew Dunstan writes: > I think it would need to be benchmarked. My faint recollection is that > the re-entrant lexers are slower. The flex documentation states in so many words: The option `--reentrant' does not affect the performance of the scanner. Do you feel a need to verify thei

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

"Kevin Grittner" wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > >> so the new minimum supported version would probably be 2.5.33 We still have five SuSE Enterprise 9 boxes in use as database servers; while we've got someone tasked with replacing them, I wonder if that version is so dead that we want to abandon

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Tom Lane wrote: > so the new minimum supported version would probably be 2.5.33 > (2.5.31 was kinda broken for other reasons, and there was no > 2.5.32). > > Since 2.5.33 is now over three years old, this does not seem like an > onerous requirement, but I thought I'd better ask if anyone has an

Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

Tom Lane wrote: I'd like to return to the project I suggested here: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/18653.1239741...@sss.pgh.pa.us of getting rid of plpgsql's private lexer and having it use the core lexer instead. This will require making the core lexer re-entrant, which is not poss

[HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

I'd like to return to the project I suggested here: http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/18653.1239741...@sss.pgh.pa.us of getting rid of plpgsql's private lexer and having it use the core lexer instead. This will require making the core lexer re-entrant, which is not possible with our oldest