Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification

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 (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-11-09 19:14:21
Subject: Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification
Previous:From: Tony ReinaDate: 2001-11-09 19:09:23
Subject: 'real' strange problem in 7.1.3

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-11-09 19:14:21
Subject: Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-11-09 18:49:24
Subject: Re: Call for objections: revision of keyword classification

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group