Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: final light versions of Oracle compatibility (SQLSTATE,

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <stehule(at)kix(dot)fsv(dot)cvut(dot)cz>,pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us
Subject: Re: final light versions of Oracle compatibility (SQLSTATE,
Date: 2005-06-10 04:24:33
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> Right, mid-rule actions were what I had in mind.  They're not uglier
> than introducing empty nonterminals

Well, IMHO they make the grammar rather hard to read when the action has 
multiple lines (we would need at least 6 lines of code in the mid-rule 
action, I believe). Unless we want two contiguous mid-rule actions 
(which is even _less_ readable), we'll need to futz with adding another 
member to %union to hold the two varnos the mid-rule action will 
produce. Considering that the Bison manual suggests that it implements 
mid-rule actions by introducing an implicit bogus non-terminal ([1]), I 
don't think there is likely to be a difference in performance either 
way, and I think mid-rule actions don't offer a notational improvement 
in this case.


toward the end of the section

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-06-10 04:54:34
Subject: Re: final light versions of Oracle compatibility (SQLSTATE, GREATEST,
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-06-10 04:02:00
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PGPASSWORD and client tools

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group