Re: [HACKERS] trouble with rules

jwieck@debis.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.

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

>     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.
        regards, tom lane