Re: Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > If you don't get rid of those then your parser will behave in surprising
> > > ways.  So far you have noticed the fallout from only one of those
> > > conflicts, but every one of them is a potential bug.  Be advised that
> > > gram.y patches that create unresolved conflicts will *not* be accepted.
> >
> > I thought shift/reduce conflicts were part and parcel of most language
> > syntaxes. reduce/reduce being rather more naughty. The standard syntax
> > already produces 95 shift/reduce conflicts. Can you clarify about
> > unresolved conflicts not being accepted?
> 
> What?  I get zero here.  shift/reduce is sloppy programming.  We don't
> do that here.  :-)

Hmm. Now I look, I think that was with an older pgsql. Maybe 6.5 or
something. Have you guys done some black magic to get rid of them?