Re: recovery.conf parsing problems

"Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 13:52 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: 
>> I'm actually not so sure that this is a good idea.  The lexical 
>> structure should be exactly the same, and some things like include 
>> files might become useful as well, so why should all this be 
>> replicated?

> I assumed the actual lexer would be the same, just the code that invokes
> it would be different. I'm happy to do things either way.

Yeah, but the actual lexer is [ looks... ] less than 50 lines of flex
code.  I think refactoring stuff to the point where that could be shared
would be more pain than it's worth ...
        regards, tom lane