Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification
Date: 2001-11-09 19:14:21
Message-ID: 200111091914.fA9JEL112903@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > A validation script is a good intermediate idea,
>
> IMHO a validation script would be *far* harder than the alternative
> I'm proposing, because it'd have to parse and interpret gram.y and
> keyword.c. Building a correct-by-construction set of keyword lists
> seems much easier than checking their rather messy representation
> in those files.

Agreed. It just removed the indirection problem mentioned by Thomas.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-11-09 19:23:45 Re: Possible major bug in PlPython (plus some other ideas)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-11-09 19:09:31 Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Klaus Naumann 2001-11-09 19:58:22 Re: Patch for Makefile race against current cvs
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-11-09 19:09:31 Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification