On 2022-09-02 Fr 13:56, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> I also wonder if we shouldn't just make ecpg optional at some point. Or even
>> move it out of the tree.
> The reason it's in the tree is to ensure its grammar stays in sync
> with the core grammar, and perhaps more to the point, that it's
> possible to build its grammar at all. If it were at arm's length,
> we'd probably not have noticed the conflict over STRING in the JSON
> patches until unpleasantly far down the road (to mention just the
> most recent example). However, those aren't arguments against
> making it optional-to-build like the PLs are.
>
>
That seems reasonable. Note that the buildfarm client would then need an
extra build step.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
