Re: 7.3beta and ecpg

From: "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>
To: "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Michael Meskes" <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Hacker" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 7.3beta and ecpg
Date: 2002-09-11 04:17:27
Message-ID: D90A5A6C612A39408103E6ECDD77B82920D1DA@voyager.corporate.connx.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 9:10 PM
> To: Michael Meskes
> Cc: PostgreSQL Hacker; Marc G. Fournier
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 7.3beta and ecpg
>
>
>
> I think we should stop playing around with ecpg. Let's get
> the beta bison on postgresql.org and package the proper ecpg
> version for 7.3beta2. If we don't, we are going to get zero
> testing for 7.3 final.
>
> Marc?
>
> We will not find out if there are problems with the bison
> beta until we ship it as part of beta and I don't think we
> have to be scared of just because it is beta.

I have a dumb idea...

Why not just package the output of the Bison beta version?

It may not be comprehensible, but it does not need to be generated on
any particular target machine does it?

Sure, it would be nice to be able to process the original grammar on any
client workstation. But if it will hold up the entire project, why not
just ship the preprocessed output?

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-09-11 04:20:30 Re:
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-09-11 04:15:01 Re: 7.3beta and ecpg