Re: Erroring out on parser conflicts

On 3 Dec 2008, at 03:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> FYI, this is going to make it hard for developers to test CVS changes
>> until they get their grammar cleaned up;  perhaps add a comment on  
>> how
>> to disable the check?
>
> Well, the point is that their grammar changes are broken if that check
> fails, so I'm not sure what the value of "testing" a known-incorrect
> grammar might be.  It wouldn't necessarily act the same after being
> fixed.
>

Well surely the c code the parser invokes will behave the same. A lot  
of c hackers are not bison grammar hackers. Even many of us former  
bison grammar hackers are way rusty. There have been a number of times  
when someone has posted an otherwise working patch with a grammar  
conflict you fixed

Bruce surely nobody would object if you posted a path to add a  
comment. People would of course quibble with the wording but that's  
just par for the course.

Perhaps something like "postgres jas a policy of maintaining zero  
parser conflicts. If you disable this for testing make sure you re- 
enable it and eliminate any conflicts. Or post to -hackers asking for  
advice"

I'm not sure where to put a comment pointing them to the %expected  
line though. What does the error look like if they violate it?


>            regards, tom lane
>
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers