Tom Lane wrote:
> State 17 contains 1 shift/reduce conflict.
> State 257 contains 1 shift/reduce conflict.
> State 359 contains 4 shift/reduce conflicts.
> State 595 contains 1 shift/reduce conflict.
> State 1106 contains 2 reduce/reduce conflicts.
> State 1260 contains 127 shift/reduce conflicts.
> State 1484 contains 2 reduce/reduce conflicts.
> State 1485 contains 2 reduce/reduce conflicts.
> State 1486 contains 2 reduce/reduce conflicts.
> If you don't get rid of those then your parser will behave in surprising
> ways. So far you have noticed the fallout from only one of those
> conflicts, but every one of them is a potential bug. Be advised that
> gram.y patches that create unresolved conflicts will *not* be accepted.
I thought shift/reduce conflicts were part and parcel of most language
syntaxes. reduce/reduce being rather more naughty. The standard syntax
already produces 95 shift/reduce conflicts. Can you clarify about
unresolved conflicts not being accepted?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Kevin Lo||Date: 2000-05-26 01:21:40|
|Subject: [DONE] PostgreSQL-7.0 binary for WinNT|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2000-05-26 01:00:07|
|Subject: Re: \dS and \df <pattern> crashing psql |