Re: code coverage patch

Tom Lane wrote:
> We're pretty much assuming bison anyway, no?  It's been years since
> I heard of anyone successfully building the backend grammar with plain
> yacc.

In my recollection, you were the last holdout on that with the 
occasional HP-UX yacc test.  But I seem to recall that that combination 
actually no longer worked the last time.

If no one else has any interest in maintaining other-yacc support, then 
we might as well drop it.