Re: [HACKERS] trouble with rules

Tom Lane wrote:

> jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > It looks to me, that it was taken out only to move
> > INTERSECT in the easy way. But this time the easy way is
> > IMHO the wrong way.
> > Removing a documented, released feature is something that
> > causes havy trouble for those who want to upgrade to a
> > new version.
> > Next time please keep existing syntax/features until
> > there is an agreement of the developers team that it has
> > to die.
>
> Calm down Jan ;-). I think what happened here is a slightly careless
> merge of the 6.3 - based INTERSECT/EXPECT code into the current code.
> Not a deliberate removal of a feature, just a foulup.

Was my fault too. I should have added this new syntax to the
regression (as I did now). That way I would have noticed as
early as can that something disappeared.

>
> This does suggest that we need to be more careful when applying patches
> developed against old system versions.

This does suggest that we need to pay more attention that all
the nifty things we do are added to the regression suite.

Saying this I've just checked and the examples I've written
in the rule system section of the programmers manual cause
the backend to dump core.

Isn't if funny? All I'm telling could be used against me. :-)

>
> > BTW: There is 1 shift/reduce conflict in gram.y (was there
> > before I fixed multi action rules). Who introduced that?
>
> Yeah, I'm seeing that too. Same cause perhaps? It seems to have
> appeared in rev 2.43, when the INTERSECT/EXPECT code was checked in.

Hmmm - wasn't there some switch to bison that tells where it
shifts/reduces. I know most of the features of gdb, but bison
is a bit hairy for me.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #