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

Re: Window Functions: v07 APIs and buffering strateties

From: "Hitoshi Harada" <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Window Functions: v07 APIs and buffering strateties
Date: 2008-10-28 12:31:37
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
2008/10/28 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Hitoshi Harada" <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2008/10/28 ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>:
>>> I tested the patch on mingw (Windows) and
>>> got the following warning and error:
>>> A. gram.y: conflicts: 3 shift/reduce
>>> B. include/nodes/plannodes.h:650: error: syntax error before "uint"
>>> I have no idea about A.
>> I have noticed it but didn't think it is a problem, but it doesn't
>> occur in production, does it?
> We have a zero-tolerance policy for bison warnings.  Patches that
> introduce shift/reduce conflicts *will* be rejected.  (And no, %expect
> isn't an acceptable fix.  The problem with it is you can't be sure
> which warnings it ignored.  In a grammar that gets hacked on as often
> as PG's does, we couldn't rely on the conflicts to not move around,
> possibly resulting in unforeseen misbehavior.)
>                        regards, tom lane

OK, I'll try to remove it. I'm not used to bison so my first task is
to find where the conflict is...


Hitoshi Harada

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gregory StarkDate: 2008-10-28 12:34:40
Subject: Re: Proposal of PITR performance improvement for 8.4.
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2008-10-28 12:28:01
Subject: Re: VACUUMs and WAL

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