On 3 Dec 2008, at 03:32 AM, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 15:09:37 Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While hacking on parser/gram.y just now I noticed in passing that the
automatically generated ecpg parser had 402 shift/reduce conflicts.
(Don't panic, the parser in
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
While hacking on parser/gram.y just now I noticed in passing that the
automatically generated ecpg parser had 402 shift/reduce conflicts.
(Don't panic, the parser in CVS is fine.) If you don't pay very close
attention, it is easy to miss this. Considering also that we frequently
have to
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While hacking on parser/gram.y just now I noticed in passing that the
automatically generated ecpg parser had 402 shift/reduce conflicts.
(Don't panic, the parser in CVS is fine.) If you don't pay very close
attention, it is easy to miss this.
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 15:09:37 Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
While hacking on parser/gram.y just now I noticed in passing that the
automatically generated ecpg parser had 402 shift/reduce conflicts.
(Don't panic, the parser in CVS is fine.) If you don't
