Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5
Date: 2009-07-12 14:34:56
Message-ID: 14962.1247409296@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2009/7/12 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> If we're going to go for reentrancy
>> I think we should fix both components.

> when we don't use reentrant grammar, then we cannot use main sql parser in SQL?

It wouldn't be a problem for the immediate application I have in mind,
which is to re-use the core lexer in plpgsql. But it does seem like
it might be a problem down the road as plpgsql gets smarter.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-07-12 14:44:59 Re: *_collapse_limit, geqo_threshold
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-07-12 14:31:45 Re: Upgrading our minimum required flex version for 8.5