Re: [Bug Fix] ECPG: could not use set xxx to default statement
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [Bug Fix] ECPG: could not use set xxx to default statement |
Дата | |
Msg-id | a7fcb720-29b1-caff-2383-12329bbdb0dd@2ndQuadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [Bug Fix] ECPG: could not use set xxx to default statement (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [Bug Fix] ECPG: could not use set xxx to default statement
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/19/19 9:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> I just looked at the bison manual at gnu.org and also at `info bison` on >> my local machine, and couldn't see any reference to semicolons being >> optional at the end of a rule. Under the heading "Syntax of Grammar >> Rules" it says this: >> A Bison grammar rule has the following general form: >> RESULT: COMPONENTS...; >> Making it optional without putting that in the manual is just awful. > Yeah. I wonder if they removed that info in 1.34 and failed to > put it back in 1.875? > > Anyway, I'm of the opinion that omitting the semi is poor style > and our tools should insist on it even if Bison does not. Thus, > I think the correct fix is for the scripts to complain about a > missing semi, not cope. Yeah, agreed. > > My initial look at parse.pl last night left me feeling pretty > disheartened about its robustness in general --- for example, > it looks like { } /* or */ inside a string literal or Bison > character token would break it completely, because it wouldn't > distinguish those cases from the same things outside a string. > It's just luck we haven't broken it yet (or, perhaps, we have > and nobody exercised the relevant productions yet?). > > Probably, somebody who's a better Perl programmer than me > ought to take point on improving that. > > Agreed. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: