Re: gram.y => preproc.y

Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 07:10:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (You might need to compress the files if the message comes to more than
>> 100-some KB. Also, given that preproc.y can be generated so easily, it
>> could just be left out.)

> I did this this time. The file is just 84K.

Came through this time, thanks.

I'm quite unhappy with the invasiveness of the proposed gram.y changes.
The @ECPG annotations are bad enough, but why are you changing actual
productions? I'm not entirely convinced that the backend still parses
exactly what it did before.

It strikes me that most if not all of the @ECPGINCLUDE annotations ought
to be unnecessary given that you've carefully identified each chunk of
ecpg.addons. The substitution script ought to be able to match those
annotations to the input for itself.

FWIW, I'm also pretty firmly convinced that awk was the wrong choice for
implementing this script...

regards, tom lane