On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Greg Smithgsm...@gregsmith.com wrote:
I got bit by this tonight as part of testing a patch on CentOS 5, which like
RHEL 5 still ships flex 2.5.4. I just wrote a little guide on how to grab a
source RPM from a Fedora version and install it to work around that
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:52, Dave Pagedp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Greg Smithgsm...@gregsmith.com wrote:
I got bit by this tonight as part of testing a patch on CentOS 5, which like
RHEL 5 still ships flex 2.5.4. I just wrote a little guide on how to grab a
Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:52, Dave Pagedp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Greg Smithgsm...@gregsmith.com wrote:
I got bit by this tonight as part of testing a patch on CentOS 5, which like
RHEL 5 still ships flex 2.5.4. I just wrote a
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Much as I dislike it, we may need to revisit the idea about putting
the flex output files in CVS...
Why? This only affects developers building from a CVS pull. You don't
need any flex at all to build from a tarball. If
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Magnus Hagander wrote:
Much as I dislike it, we may need to revisit the idea about putting
the flex output files in CVS...
Why? This only affects developers building from a CVS pull. You don't
need any flex at
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
I wonder if it would be helpful to have a buildfarm option whereby
it would fetch the latest nightly-snapshot tarball and use that instead
of a CVS pull.
That is certainly doable. It would be in effect a forced run, because we
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 05:10, Andrew Dunstanand...@dunslane.net wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Maybe for the time being we need to think about keeping scan.c in CVS.
It's not like scan.l gets updated all that often.
We could if we had to, though it amounts to saying that Windows-based
developers
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
FWIW, it seems the version that Andrew put up doesn't work in one of
my test environments, and also not in at last one of Dave's. I will
test it in my second test environment later today to be sure.
It doesn't work in
Dave Page wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
FWIW, it seems the version that Andrew put up doesn't work in one of
my test environments, and also not in at last one of Dave's. I will
test it in my second test environment later today to be
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
It doesn't work in any of my bf animals, or build machines :-(
?? narwhal seems to have gone green.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
It doesn't work in any of my bf animals, or build machines :-(
?? narwhal seems to have gone green.
Narwhal is mingw/msys. The misbehaving flex is the one provided by
Andrew for use with
Tom Lane wrote:
Dave Page dp...@pgadmin.org writes:
It doesn't work in any of my bf animals, or build machines :-(
?? narwhal seems to have gone green.
Yeah, the problem is with MSVC, Narwal is a Mingw box.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
I got bit by this tonight as part of testing a patch on CentOS 5, which
like RHEL 5 still ships flex 2.5.4. I just wrote a little guide on how to
grab a source RPM from a Fedora version and install it to work around that
problem:
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-hackers-
ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 7:43 PM
To: Andrew Dunstan
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Upgrading our minimum required flex version
Chuck McDevitt wrote:
Flex 2.5.33 and bison 2.3 are available from mingw for windows.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw/files/
Since mingw programs don't need Cygwin installed, these should probably be OK
for most Windows people.
But if really needed, flex 2.5.33 could be ported (m4
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Chuck McDevitt wrote:
Flex 2.5.33 and bison 2.3 are available from mingw for windows.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/mingw/files/
Since mingw programs don't need Cygwin installed, these should
probably be OK for most Windows people.
But if really needed, flex
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
What I have done is built a version of flex 2.5.35 with Cygwin, and
bundled the .exe with the Cygwin DLL (the only other thing it should
need, for our purposes) in a zip file. It can currently be fetched from
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Now this disappears into the noise as soon as you include parse
analysis (let alone planning and execution)
No need to go for silly options to avoid a performance issue at that
level. Time wasted dealing with subsequent silliness would almost
certainly
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
I see that a good-sized
fraction of the buildfarm is still on flex 2.5.4 and will therefore go
red when this goes in. Should I hold off a bit longer, or is committing
the best way to get their attention?
Probably the latter. I will update my
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
OK, the fly in this ointment turns out to be MSVC. The latest flex
from GnuWin32 is 2.5.4a, and building 2.5.35 for Windows is turning
out to be quite a pain. Luckily, MinGW has a pre-built modified 2.5.33
available, and I have installed this (also needed msys-regex),
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Well, it looks like there's a reason GnuWin32 hasn't advanced beyond
2.5.4a - after that the flex developers proceeded to make flex use a
filter chain methodology that requires the use of fork(). Making it run
on Windows without the support of
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Well, it looks like there's a reason GnuWin32 hasn't advanced beyond
2.5.4a - after that the flex developers proceeded to make flex use a
filter chain methodology that requires the use of fork(). Making it run
on Windows without
2009/7/12 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I think it would need to be benchmarked. My faint recollection is that
the re-entrant lexers are slower.
The flex documentation states in so many
Tom Lane wrote:
As best I can tell after some casual testing on a couple of machines,
the actual bottom line is that raw_parser (ie, the bison and flex
processing) is going to be a couple of percent slower with a reentrant
grammar and lexer, for typical queries involving a lot of short tokens.
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2009/7/12 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
If we're going to go for reentrancy
I think we should fix both components.
when we don't use reentrant grammar, then we cannot use main sql parser in
SQL?
It wouldn't be a problem for the immediate
2009/7/12 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com writes:
2009/7/12 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
If we're going to go for reentrancy
I think we should fix both components.
when we don't use reentrant grammar, then we cannot use main sql parser in
SQL?
It
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
If we're going to have a reentrant lexer, I think we should go the whole
nine yards. I agree that a couple of percent slowdown on just the lexing
and parsing will be lost in the noise. So +1 from me.
I found a couple of places where a few cycles
Tom Lane wrote:
I see that a good-sized
fraction of the buildfarm is still on flex 2.5.4 and will therefore go
red when this goes in. Should I hold off a bit longer, or is committing
the best way to get their attention?
Probably the latter. I will update my various members. I see that
This is ready to go except for changing the minimum flex version test
in configure (and associated documentation). I see that a good-sized
fraction of the buildfarm is still on flex 2.5.4 and will therefore go
red when this goes in. Should I hold off a bit longer, or is committing
the best
Josh Berkus wrote:
This is ready to go except for changing the minimum flex version test
in configure (and associated documentation). I see that a good-sized
fraction of the buildfarm is still on flex 2.5.4 and will therefore go
red when this goes in. Should I hold off a bit longer, or is
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Josh Berkus wrote:
Oh, I didn't think about the Flex version. That's going to be a far
more widespread problem. OSX 10.5, for example, still ships with
2.5.33. I suspect that a *lot* of OSes won't have anything up-to-date.
That's the version
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I think it would need to be benchmarked. My faint recollection is that
the re-entrant lexers are slower.
The flex documentation states in so many words:
The option `--reentrant' does
Tom Lane píše v čt 02. 07. 2009 v 13:13 -0400:
Actually, most of the buildfarm members show which flex version they are
running in the configure output. A quick look shows that of the 45
members that have reported on HEAD in the past 2 days, 22 are running
2.5.4, which is a lot higher
I'd like to return to the project I suggested here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/18653.1239741...@sss.pgh.pa.us
of getting rid of plpgsql's private lexer and having it use the core
lexer instead. This will require making the core lexer re-entrant,
which is not possible with our
Tom Lane wrote:
I'd like to return to the project I suggested here:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/18653.1239741...@sss.pgh.pa.us
of getting rid of plpgsql's private lexer and having it use the core
lexer instead. This will require making the core lexer re-entrant,
which is not
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
so the new minimum supported version would probably be 2.5.33
(2.5.31 was kinda broken for other reasons, and there was no
2.5.32).
Since 2.5.33 is now over three years old, this does not seem like an
onerous requirement, but I thought I'd better ask if
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
so the new minimum supported version would probably be 2.5.33
We still have five SuSE Enterprise 9 boxes in use as database servers;
while we've got someone tasked with replacing them, I wonder if that
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I think it would need to be benchmarked. My faint recollection is that
the re-entrant lexers are slower.
The flex documentation states in so many words:
The option `--reentrant' does not affect the performance of the scanner.
Do you feel a
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
I think it would need to be benchmarked. My faint recollection is that
the re-entrant lexers are slower.
The flex documentation states in so many words:
The option `--reentrant' does not affect the performance of
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
so the new minimum supported version would probably be 2.5.33
(2.5.31 was kinda broken for other reasons, and there was no
2.5.32).
Since 2.5.33 is now over three years old, this does not seem like an
onerous requirement,
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
kgri...@ccdev-db:/etc/init.d flex --version
flex 2.5.31
Just how broken is the version we're using?
You might want to take that up with SuSE. The flex NEWS file just cites
numerous bug and security fixes from .31 to .33.
Our CVS logs show
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Since 2.5.33 is now over three years old, this does not seem like an
onerous requirement, but I thought I'd better ask if anyone has an
objection?
You'd be causing problems for SuSE
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com writes:
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Since 2.5.33 is now over three years old, this does not seem like an
onerous requirement, but I thought I'd better ask if anyone has an
objection?
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Keep in mind that if you build from a tarball, the lexer has already
been run elsewhere and you don't need flex.
Does that hold for the daily snapshots? If so, I should be good. My
workstation is OK on flex version. (I run kubuntu on my
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Right, this will only affect people doing development or otherwise
building from a CVS pull.
Of course, that includes the whole buildfarm. We might need to ask some
people to upgrade there.
Yes. What I was thinking of doing was
Kevin Grittner wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Keep in mind that if you build from a tarball, the lexer has already
been run elsewhere and you don't need flex.
Does that hold for the daily snapshots? If so, I should be good.
Yes, the snapshots have the
Tom Lane wrote:
Right, this will only affect people doing development or otherwise
building from a CVS pull.
Someone doing a CVS pull already needs a specific recent version of
autoconf anyways. How old is this version of flex compared to the
version of autoconf we require?
--
greg
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Greg Starkgsst...@mit.edu wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Right, this will only affect people doing development or otherwise
building from a CVS pull.
Someone doing a CVS pull already needs a specific recent version of
autoconf anyways. How old is this version of flex
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Greg Starkgsst...@mit.edu wrote:
Someone doing a CVS pull already needs a specific recent version of
autoconf anyways. How old is this version of flex compared to the
version of autoconf we require?
Really? configure
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Yes, the snapshots have the derived files too.
Then I take it back -- the new flex versions would have little or no
impact on me. Worst case, I might need to download a snapshot to
apply my patch for testing on the big machines. If I
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Then I take it back -- the new flex versions would have little or no
impact on me. Worst case, I might need to download a snapshot to
apply my patch for testing on the big machines. If I understood
what make options I could use on my machine
I wrote:
Yes. What I was thinking of doing was committing a configure change to
reject flex 2.5.31, and waiting to see how much of the buildfarm goes
red.
Actually, most of the buildfarm members show which flex version they are
running in the configure output. A quick look shows that of the
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Peter or Marc could clue you in a bit better, but I think it's as
simple as saying make dist at the top level of a modified source
tree. This gets you a source tarball the same way the release
tarballs are made.
I seem to be able to sneak up on it from
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
I seem to be able to sneak up on it from behind by doing a regular
make and then make distclean and copying the results. Perhaps
someone knows off-hand what I'm missing that prevents make dist from
working. The attempt ends with:
jade -D
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
jade -D . -d stylesheet.dsl -i output-text -t sgml -V nochunks
tempfile_HISTORY.sgml HISTORY.html
/bin/sh: jade: not found
Looks like you're missing openjade. However, that's only used to
produce
On Thursday 02 July 2009 19:46:04 Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Then I take it back -- the new flex versions would have little or no
impact on me. Worst case, I might need to download a snapshot to
apply my patch for testing on the big machines. If I
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Tom Lanet...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
However I'm a bit worried about the situation for Windows --- does
anyone know whether a newer flex is readily available for Windows?
MSYS Suplementary Tools (for mingw) includes flex-2.5.33
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
make distprep is what prepares those files.
Perfect! Flex files built. No errors. Thanks much!
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
Tom Lane píše v čt 02. 07. 2009 v 11:32 -0400:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Right, this will only affect people doing development or otherwise
building from a CVS pull.
Of course, that includes the whole buildfarm. We might need to ask some
people to
Tom Lane píše v čt 02. 07. 2009 v 13:13 -0400:
I wrote:
Yes. What I was thinking of doing was committing a configure change to
reject flex 2.5.31, and waiting to see how much of the buildfarm goes
red.
Actually, most of the buildfarm members show which flex version they are
running
60 matches
Mail list logo
