Thread: ECPG won't compile anymore
I finally hit bison's limit and cannot find any easy to remove rules in the ecpg part of the parser anymore. There may be some in the backend part, but I'd like to keep those in sync. For the time being I update my machine to a development snapshot bison 1.49, but that doesn't look like a good solution. After all it hasn't been released yet. Since I suppose almost no one of you outthere uses a development version of bison I cannot commit my changes, or else, you all cannot compile ecpg anymore. So what do we do? Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael@Fam-Meskes.De Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org> writes:
> I finally hit bison's limit and cannot find any easy to remove rules in
> the ecpg part of the parser anymore. There may be some in the backend
> part, but I'd like to keep those in sync.
> So what do we do?
I'd be inclined to say that you don't commit until bison 1.49 is
officially released. Got any idea when that will be?
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > I'd be inclined to say that you don't commit until bison 1.49 is > officially released. Got any idea when that will be? No, that's the problem. ECPG and the backend parser are running out of sync. After all bison's release may be later than our next one. I cannot commit even simple bugfixes anymore as my source tree already has the uncompilable bison file. So I would have to work on two different source trees. I don't exactly like that. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael@Fam-Meskes.De Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
Michael Meskes wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > I'd be inclined to say that you don't commit until bison 1.49 is > > officially released. Got any idea when that will be? > > No, that's the problem. ECPG and the backend parser are running out of > sync. After all bison's release may be later than our next one. > > I cannot commit even simple bugfixes anymore as my source tree > already has the uncompilable bison file. So I would have to work on two > different source trees. I don't exactly like that. Are we the only ones up against this problem? Hard to imagine we are the only ones up against this limit in bison. Are there other options? I don't see how we can distribute ecpg in 7.3 without some kind of fix. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us 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
Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'd be inclined to say that you don't commit until bison 1.49 is
>> officially released. Got any idea when that will be?
> No, that's the problem. ECPG and the backend parser are running out of
> sync. After all bison's release may be later than our next one.
That would be trouble, but considering that we are not even thinking of
going beta before late August, is it really a realistic risk? bison
seems to be making releases quite frequently lately. They were at 1.30
back in November, according to my archives, so that's 19 releases in the
last 8 months.
If we get to August and there's no official release of bison with the
larger table size, then it will be time to worry, IMHO.
regards, tom lane
> -----Original Message----- > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us] > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:13 AM > To: Michael Meskes > Cc: PostgreSQL Hacker > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ECPG won't compile anymore > > > Michael Meskes wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > I'd be inclined to say that you don't commit until bison 1.49 is > > > officially released. Got any idea when that will be? > > > > No, that's the problem. ECPG and the backend parser are > running out of > > sync. After all bison's release may be later than our next one. > > > > I cannot commit even simple bugfixes anymore as my source tree > > already has the uncompilable bison file. So I would have to > work on two > > different source trees. I don't exactly like that. > > Are we the only ones up against this problem? Hard to imagine we are > the only ones up against this limit in bison. Are there > other options? > I don't see how we can distribute ecpg in 7.3 without some > kind of fix. There are some other freely available parser/generators. I like the Lemmon parser generator. Of course, I have no idea how traumatic it would be to convert a Bison grammar into Lemmon. There is also PCCTS and some other free ones. http://www.hwaci.com/sw/lemon/
> -----Original Message----- > From: Dann Corbit > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 1:51 PM > To: Bruce Momjian; Michael Meskes > Cc: PostgreSQL Hacker > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ECPG won't compile anymore > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us] > > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:13 AM > > To: Michael Meskes > > Cc: PostgreSQL Hacker > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] ECPG won't compile anymore > > > > > > Michael Meskes wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 10:29:10AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > I'd be inclined to say that you don't commit until bison 1.49 is > > > > officially released. Got any idea when that will be? > > > > > > No, that's the problem. ECPG and the backend parser are > > running out of > > > sync. After all bison's release may be later than our next one. > > > > > > I cannot commit even simple bugfixes anymore as my source tree > > > already has the uncompilable bison file. So I would have to > > work on two > > > different source trees. I don't exactly like that. > > > > Are we the only ones up against this problem? Hard to > imagine we are > > the only ones up against this limit in bison. Are there > > other options? > > I don't see how we can distribute ecpg in 7.3 without some > > kind of fix. > > There are some other freely available parser/generators. I like the > Lemmon parser generator. Of course, I have no idea how traumatic it > would be to convert a Bison grammar into Lemmon. There is also PCCTS > and some other free ones. > > http://www.hwaci.com/sw/lemon/ > It occurs to me that SQLite is a PostgreSQL clone {grammar wise, but a subset}: http://www.hwaci.com/sw/sqlite/ that uses the Lemon parser generator. Therefore, the grammar for the SQL language itself should be extremely similar, and it might (therefore) be very easy to see what he has done to make the transition. Of course, the ECPG tool has its own grammar, so I am not sure how helpful that would be. By the way, there is a rather unflattering speed comparison with PostgreSQL on this page: http://www.hwaci.com/sw/sqlite/speed.html It might be nice to use those tests with gprof to find out where the bottlenecks are. It also seems possible that he may have used an older version of PostgreSQL.
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 01:57:37PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > That would be trouble, but considering that we are not even thinking of > going beta before late August, is it really a realistic risk? bison Yes. After all it's much easier to sync the two if I get smaller changes. > seems to be making releases quite frequently lately. They were at 1.30 > back in November, according to my archives, so that's 19 releases in the > last 8 months. True. But most of them are not for releases. I have no idea which vesion number will be the one they release. Up to 1.35 they released frequently, but then it stopped and 1.49 is quite far from 1.35. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael@Fam-Meskes.De Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 02:12:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Are we the only ones up against this problem? Hard to imagine we are No, there are more, that's why bison is worked on. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael@Fam-Meskes.De Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
Dann Corbit wrote: > [...] > > By the way, there is a rather unflattering speed comparison with > PostgreSQL on this page: > http://www.hwaci.com/sw/sqlite/speed.html > > It might be nice to use those tests with gprof to find out where the > bottlenecks are. It also seems possible that he may have used an older > version of PostgreSQL. It also seems they forgot to vacuum analyze the database. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Michael Meskes wrote: > On Tue, Jun 18, 2002 at 02:12:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Are we the only ones up against this problem? Hard to imagine we are > > No, there are more, that's why bison is worked on. All I can say is that I am making incremental commits to gram.y, so you can ignore the reformatting commits and focus on the ones that affect your grammar. Not sure what else can be done. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us 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