Thread: RE: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes

When is 6.6 being released?  I'm not sure about the greedy lexer, I don't
really know enough to comment, but at first glance, yes fine.  The question
is, though, what are possible operators.  Do we limit the user-defined
operators in PG to only to a specific subset of characters.  Perhaps we
should lex each operator separately, and then get the compiler to construct
logical operators from the physical components that it gets.

MikeA

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Thomas Lockhart [mailto:lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu]
>> Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 5:33 AM
>> To: Leon
>> Cc: Tom Lane; pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
>> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Status report: long-query-string changes
>> 
>> 
>> > Thomas Lockhart should speak up - he seems the only person who
>> > has objections yet. If the proposed thing is to be 
>> declined, something
>> > has to be applied instead in respect to lexer reject feature and
>> > accompanying size limits, as well as grammar inconsistency.
>> 
>> Hmm. I'd suggest that we go with the "greedy lexer" solution, which
>> continues to gobble characters which *could* be an operator until
>> other characters or whitespace are encountered.
>> 
>> I don't recall any compelling cases for which this would be an
>> inadequate solution, and we have plenty of time until v6.6 
>> is released
>> to discover problems and work out alternatives.
>> 
>> Sorry for slowing things up; but fwiw I *did* think about it 
>> some more
>> ;)
>> 
>>                     - Thomas
>> 
>> -- 
>> Thomas Lockhart                
>> lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
>> South Pasadena, California
>> 
>> ************
>> 

"Ansley, Michael" <Michael.Ansley@intec.co.za> writes:
> When is 6.6 being released?

Schedule?  You want a schedule???

Seriously, I'd have to guess at least three months off.  Vadim wants to
do transaction logging, I've got a lot of half-baked optimizer work to
finish, and I dunno what anyone else has up their sleeve.

The goal used to be a major release every three months, but we haven't
met that in some time.  And, since it seems like we are now putting
out major releases in order to do significant upgrades and not just
incremental stability improvements, I kinda think that a slower cycle
(six-month intervals, say) might be a more useful goal at this stage.
Has the core group thought about this issue lately?
        regards, tom lane

> The goal used to be a major release every three months, but we haven't
> met that in some time.  And, since it seems like we are now putting
> out major releases in order to do significant upgrades and not just
> incremental stability improvements, I kinda think that a slower cycle
> (six-month intervals, say) might be a more useful goal at this stage.
> Has the core group thought about this issue lately?

I got a good laugh on this one.  That we actually planned ahead...  :-)

--  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@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