Re: NOT {NULL|DEFERRABLE} (was: bug in 7.0)

Tom Lane wrote:

> wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
>
> >     It's a kludge too, mucking around with a
>
> >         #define yylex() pg_yylex()
>
> >     at the  beginning,  then  later  #undef'ining  it  again  and
>
> Um.  We do *not* insist on bison, and at least one platform that
> I work with would like to keep the option.  Please hold off on this.
   Oh - O.K. - wrong assumption. Interesting if such a construct   works with other yacc implementations anyway.

> The other alternative that was discussed was to put the onus on
> analyze.c to fix things up.  Basically, we could make NOT DEFERRABLE
> and the other subclauses of foreign key clauses be independent
> clauses from the grammar's point of view; that is,
> [...]
   Yepp, that was the third possible solution we  talked  about.   No doubt that it is the best one, and something we
bothwanna   see at the end. Only that I fear we cannot build it  in  time   for  7.0  schedule.  Thus I assume we have
tolive 'now' with   either Thomas' kludge (as you called it),  restricting  order   of constraint clauses and
introducingunpleasant "Why doesn't   my query ..." questions, or my crude hack.  From  the  latter   one,  I  expect
farless rumour because that's restricted to   ppl NOT using bison BUT touching gram.y.
 
   At least this one will give us the option to delay the  final   solution  until  7.1  or  until  we  shuffle  up
the entire   parser->rewriter->planner/optimizer->executor path. And  that   without crippling the syntax from the
usersPoV.
 


Jan

--

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