From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(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 19:09:31 |
Message-ID: | 21198.1005332971@sss.pgh.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.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-09 19:14:21 | Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification |
Previous Message | Tony Reina | 2001-11-09 19:09:23 | 'real' strange problem in 7.1.3 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-09 19:14:21 | Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-09 18:49:24 | Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification |