On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 12:45:06AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> No? If there are bugs in it, they will break the main SQL parser, not
> only ecpg. I am scared.
Actually there is one more problem. The backend introduced the EXECUTE
command just recently. However, this clashes with the embedded SQL
EXECUTE command. Since both may be called just with EXECUTE <name>,
there is no way to distinguish them.
I have no idea if there's a standard about execution of a plan but
couldn't/shouldn't it be named "EXECUTE PLAN" instead of just "EXECUTE"?
> I am also still wondering if we couldn't tweak the grammar to eliminate
> states so that ecpg would build with a standard bison. That would be a
> win all 'round, but it requires effort that we maybe don't have to
> spend.
Actually I think it will need quite some effort, in particular since I
stay away from the backend grammar as much as possible. Once I change
the backend compatible part of the grammar I either have to make the
same changes to the backends parser or ecpg will soon be unmaintainable.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Michael@Fam-Meskes.De
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire!
Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
