| From: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ECPG |
| Date: | 2002-09-23 10:30:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20020923103016.GA14938@feivel.fam-meskes.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 04:18:23PM -0400, 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.
But then there may be one. And I'd prefer to not remove features that
used to exist.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael(at)Fam-Meskes(dot)De
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-09-23 12:24:25 | Re: PGXLOG variable worthwhile? |
| Previous Message | Roberto Fichera | 2002-09-23 10:27:47 | Problem on PG7.2.2 |