On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:07:02PM -0400, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
> > I just noticed this comment in scan.l:
> > /*
> > * GUC variables. This is
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 4:07 PM, David G. Johnston <
david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> "David G. Johnston" writes:
>> > I just noticed this comment in scan.l:
>> > /*
>> > * GUC variables.
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 3:57 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> "David G. Johnston" writes:
> > I just noticed this comment in scan.l:
> > /*
> > * GUC variables. This is a DIRECT violation of the warning given at the
> > * head of gram.y, ie flex/bison
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> I just noticed this comment in scan.l:
> /*
> * GUC variables. This is a DIRECT violation of the warning given at the
> * head of gram.y, ie flex/bison code must not depend on any GUC variables;
> * as such, changing their values can
I just noticed this comment in scan.l:
/*
* GUC variables. This is a DIRECT violation of the warning given at the
* head of gram.y, ie flex/bison code must not depend on any GUC variables;
* as such, changing their values can induce very unintuitive behavior.
* But we shall have to live with