| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, andrew(at)supernews(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: recovery.conf parsing problems |
| Date: | 2006-12-14 15:21:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20490.1166109677@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 13:52 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I'm actually not so sure that this is a good idea. The lexical
>> structure should be exactly the same, and some things like include
>> files might become useful as well, so why should all this be
>> replicated?
> I assumed the actual lexer would be the same, just the code that invokes
> it would be different. I'm happy to do things either way.
Yeah, but the actual lexer is [ looks... ] less than 50 lines of flex
code. I think refactoring stuff to the point where that could be shared
would be more pain than it's worth ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-14 15:36:05 | Re: Operator class group proposal |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2006-12-14 14:41:59 | Re: recovery.conf parsing problems |