On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 02:12:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Are we the only ones up against this problem? Hard to imagine we are
No, there are more, that's why bison is worked on.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 01:57:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> That would be trouble, but considering that we are not even thinking of
> going beta before late August, is it really a realistic risk? bison
Yes. After all it's much easier to sync the two if I get smaller
changes.
> seems to be maki
> -Original Message-
> From: Dann Corbit
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:51 PM
> To: Bruce Momjian; Michael Meskes
> Cc: PostgreSQL Hacker
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ECPG won't compile anymore
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bruce Mo
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:13 AM
> To: Michael Meskes
> Cc: PostgreSQL Hacker
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ECPG won't compile anymore
>
>
> Michael Meskes wrote:
> > On Tue,
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd be inclined to say that you don't commit until bison 1.49 is
>> officially released. Got any idea when that will be?
> No, that's the problem. ECPG and the backend parser are running out
Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I'd be inclined to say that you don't commit until bison 1.49 is
> > officially released. Got any idea when that will be?
>
> No, that's the problem. ECPG and the backend parser are running out of
> sync. After
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd be inclined to say that you don't commit until bison 1.49 is
> officially released. Got any idea when that will be?
No, that's the problem. ECPG and the backend parser are running out of
sync. After all bison's release may be later
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I finally hit bison's limit and cannot find any easy to remove rules in
> the ecpg part of the parser anymore. There may be some in the backend
> part, but I'd like to keep those in sync.
> So what do we do?
I'd be inclined to say that you don't commi
