Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Lockhart
Subject Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1)
Date
Msg-id 37F0CC78.EFA8B4B0@alumni.caltech.edu
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: RI and PARSER (was: Re: [HACKERS] RI status report #1)
List pgsql-hackers
>     To  coordinate  with your work I've included my needs for the
>     SET CONSTRAINTS command below. I can wait a little  with  the
>     other  (CREATE  CONTRAINT TRIGGER) until you're done - except
>     you need to lock the parser for loooong time.

I didn't look *carefully*, but I'm sure this is all just fine. If you
have a chance, could you please try adding every new keyword to the
existing alphabetical list in ColId and/or ColLabel? In many cases
keywords which appear in only a limited context can still be allowed
in other places, and when we add new ones we tend to forget to update
this list.

I can do this later if you like; send me a note to remind me after you
commit your changes.

btw, since I'd already done some work on gram.y for join syntax the
patches to get it right aren't all that invasive in that file.
                   - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart                lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patch for user-defined C-language functions
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Operator definitions