Re: ECPG

Tom Lane wrote:
> I had a thought about what to do with the ECPG grammar-too-big problem:
> rather than depending on a beta release of bison, we could attack the
> problem directly by omitting some of the backend grammar from what ECPG
> supports. Surely there are not many people using ECPG to issue obscure
> utility commands like, for example, DROP OPERATOR CLASS.
>
> I haven't tried this to see just how much we'd have to dike out, but
> my guess is that we could push the ecpg grammar down to something that
> would get through stock bison without omitting anything anyone's even
> remotely likely to miss.
>
> This is, of course, an ugly hack that we'd want to undo once more
> capable versions of bison are readily available. But I think it could
> tide us over for a release or two.
>
> Comments?

I think we should just go with the bison beta for ecpg and be done with
it. If we find bugs, we can ask the bison folks to fix it, or work
around it ourselves.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073