Re: Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER
Date
Msg-id 200005252049.QAA08318@candle.pha.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER  ("Ross J. Reedstrom" <reedstrm@rice.edu>)
Responses Re: Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER
List pgsql-hackers
> On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 12:12:12PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > If you don't get rid of those then your parser will behave in surprising
> > > ways.  So far you have noticed the fallout from only one of those
> > > conflicts, but every one of them is a potential bug.  Be advised that
> > > gram.y patches that create unresolved conflicts will *not* be accepted.
> > 
> > Yes, even I don't apply those, though they say I never met a patch I
> > didn't like.  :-)
> 
> Bruce, your going to _make_ me grovel through the archives, and prove
> that you were the first one to say that aren't you?

I believe it was a Thomas Lockhart line.

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610)
853-3000+  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
 


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Ross J. Reedstrom"
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: gram.y PROBLEM with UNDER
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Any reason to use pg_dumpall on an idle database