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) #