Thread: v7.2.4 bundled ...
Morning all ... I jsut bundled up v7.2.4 with all the recent security fixes ... can a few ppl do some regression tests and report back before I announce in the morning? I did a configure and build here and all looks fine, but some confirmations is always nice ;)
> I jsut bundled up v7.2.4 with all the recent security fixes ... can a > few ppl do some regression tests and report back before I announce in the > morning? I did a configure and build here and all looks fine, but some > confirmations is always nice ;) Updated to tag REL7_2_4 on FreeBSD 4.7 and cannot compile it. gram.y errors complaining: invalid character: ','. bash-2.05b$ bison --version bison (GNU Bison) 1.75 Written by Robert Corbett and Richard Stallman. -- Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> writes:
> Updated to tag REL7_2_4 on FreeBSD 4.7 and cannot compile it. gram.y
> errors complaining: invalid character: ','.
> bash-2.05b$ bison --version
> bison (GNU Bison) 1.75
We just had that discussion on pgcore. The 7.2 grammar was developed
against bison 1.28; it works with warnings against bison 1.35, but bison
1.75 just flat rejects it (not for any significant reason, but just
because they decided to get anal-retentive about whether they'd allow
commas in keyword lists).
We could update the 7.2 grammar and compile it with the latest bison,
but we were worried about whether we might introduce any subtle problems
if we did. The 7.2 branch has received zero testing with bison 1.75.
ISTM that the eve of what'll probably be our last dot-release for 7.2
is not the time to drop a new bison into its toolchain.
regards, tom lane
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> writes:
> I jsut bundled up v7.2.4 with all the recent security fixes ... can a
> few ppl do some regression tests and report back before I announce in the
> morning? I did a configure and build here and all looks fine, but some
> confirmations is always nice ;)
Passes regression tests here (HPUX 10.20)...
regards, tom lane
Where do I get it from? I can't see it on any of the FTP sites... Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Marc G. Fournier > Sent: Thursday, 30 January 2003 10:00 AM > To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: [HACKERS] v7.2.4 bundled ... > > > > Morning all ... > > I jsut bundled up v7.2.4 with all the recent security fixes ... can a > few ppl do some regression tests and report back before I announce in the > morning? I did a configure and build here and all looks fine, but some > confirmations is always nice ;) > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster >
Redhat 6.2 Linux gserver1 2.4.19-pre6 #4 Thu Apr 11 07:17:39 CEST 2002 alpha unknown All 79 tests passed. Magnus
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au> writes:
> Where do I get it from?
> I can't see it on any of the FTP sites...
Not all the mirrors have updated yet, but I see it at
ftp://ftp9.us.postgresql.org/pub/mirrors/postgresql/source/v7.2.4/
for one ...
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> writes: > > Updated to tag REL7_2_4 on FreeBSD 4.7 and cannot compile it. gram.y > > errors complaining: invalid character: ','. > > > bash-2.05b$ bison --version > > bison (GNU Bison) 1.75 > > We just had that discussion on pgcore. The 7.2 grammar was developed > against bison 1.28; it works with warnings against bison 1.35, but bison > 1.75 just flat rejects it (not for any significant reason, but just > because they decided to get anal-retentive about whether they'd allow > commas in keyword lists). > > We could update the 7.2 grammar and compile it with the latest bison, > but we were worried about whether we might introduce any subtle problems > if we did. The 7.2 branch has received zero testing with bison 1.75. > > ISTM that the eve of what'll probably be our last dot-release for 7.2 > is not the time to drop a new bison into its toolchain. For what it's worth, I've fixed all the errors in the 7.2.4 gram.y file that bison 1.75 complained and then re-ran bison 1.35 against it, then compared that with the output that the same version of bison generated from the original grammar file. The only differences were references to line numbers -- everything else is identical. So if any problems occur from using bison 1.75, they will be either due to bugs in that version of bison or due to our dependence on a bug in earlier versions, or something like that. I'm attaching a patch for 7.2.4's parser/gram.y that fixes all of bison 1.75's complaints. Since the output of bison 1.35 is essentially identical between the original and this, I don't see any reason we shouldn't include the fix in the 7.2.4 release, as long as we include a warning in the release notes that we haven't done any real testing with a build against bison 1.75 (or later). -- Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
Attachment
Tom Lane wrote: > Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> writes: > > Updated to tag REL7_2_4 on FreeBSD 4.7 and cannot compile it. gram.y > > errors complaining: invalid character: ','. > > > bash-2.05b$ bison --version > > bison (GNU Bison) 1.75 > > We just had that discussion on pgcore. The 7.2 grammar was developed > against bison 1.28; it works with warnings against bison 1.35, but bison > 1.75 just flat rejects it (not for any significant reason, but just > because they decided to get anal-retentive about whether they'd allow > commas in keyword lists). > > We could update the 7.2 grammar and compile it with the latest bison, > but we were worried about whether we might introduce any subtle problems > if we did. The 7.2 branch has received zero testing with bison 1.75. > > ISTM that the eve of what'll probably be our last dot-release for 7.2 > is not the time to drop a new bison into its toolchain. Ooops. Last patch wasn't done using CVS diff. This one is, in case it matters... -- Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
Attachment
All tests pass on FreeBSD/Alpha. Chris > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Magnus > Naeslund(f) > Sent: Thursday, 30 January 2003 2:13 PM > To: Marc G. Fournier; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] v7.2.4 bundled ... > > > Redhat 6.2 > Linux gserver1 2.4.19-pre6 #4 Thu Apr 11 07:17:39 CEST 2002 alpha > unknown > All 79 tests passed. > > Magnus > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org >
> > bash-2.05b$ bison --version > > bison (GNU Bison) 1.75 > ISTM that the eve of what'll probably be our last dot-release for 7.2 > is not the time to drop a new bison into its toolchain. Agreed -- but it's worth mentioning in the 7.2.4 release notes that an earlier Bison version is required. -- Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com> writes:
> I'm attaching a patch for 7.2.4's parser/gram.y that fixes all of
> bison 1.75's complaints.
But parser/gram.y is not the only .y file in the distribution. To call
ourselves 1.75-safe, we'd have to go through this same exercise for
all of 'em:
$ find REL7_2 -name '*.y'
REL7_2/pgsql/contrib/cube/cubeparse.y
REL7_2/pgsql/contrib/seg/segparse.y
REL7_2/pgsql/src/backend/bootstrap/bootparse.y
REL7_2/pgsql/src/backend/parser/gram.y
REL7_2/pgsql/src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/preproc.y
REL7_2/pgsql/src/pl/plpgsql/src/gram.y
$
And on top of that, 1.75 isn't the current bison release anymore; the
one that is current has changed the spelling of syntax error messages,
which means that the regression tests will fail (and perhaps clients
that are looking for syntax errors, too). We have agreed how to fix
this in HEAD, but not actually done it yet --- shall we put that
not-even-written-let-alone-tested code into 7.2.4 as well?
I think it's best to leave well enough alone. The tarball ships with
working bison output files anyway, so all of this really only matters
to people trying to build 7.2.* from a CVS pull.
regards, tom lane
7.2.x isn't bison 1.75 compatible ... and most likely never will be ... On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Rod Taylor wrote: > > I jsut bundled up v7.2.4 with all the recent security fixes ... can a > > few ppl do some regression tests and report back before I announce in the > > morning? I did a configure and build here and all looks fine, but some > > confirmations is always nice ;) > > Updated to tag REL7_2_4 on FreeBSD 4.7 and cannot compile it. gram.y > errors complaining: invalid character: ','. > > bash-2.05b$ bison --version > bison (GNU Bison) 1.75 > Written by Robert Corbett and Richard Stallman. > > > > -- > Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> > > PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc >
Tom Lane wrote: > Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com> writes: > > I'm attaching a patch for 7.2.4's parser/gram.y that fixes all of > > bison 1.75's complaints. > > But parser/gram.y is not the only .y file in the distribution. To call > ourselves 1.75-safe, we'd have to go through this same exercise for > all of 'em: > > $ find REL7_2 -name '*.y' > REL7_2/pgsql/contrib/cube/cubeparse.y > REL7_2/pgsql/contrib/seg/segparse.y > REL7_2/pgsql/src/backend/bootstrap/bootparse.y > REL7_2/pgsql/src/backend/parser/gram.y > REL7_2/pgsql/src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/preproc.y > REL7_2/pgsql/src/pl/plpgsql/src/gram.y > $ I'll be happy to go through the same process for those files. > And on top of that, 1.75 isn't the current bison release anymore; the > one that is current has changed the spelling of syntax error messages, > which means that the regression tests will fail (and perhaps clients > that are looking for syntax errors, too). We have agreed how to fix > this in HEAD, but not actually done it yet --- shall we put that > not-even-written-let-alone-tested code into 7.2.4 as well? I assume you're referring to the use of error numbers here. Yes, I agree that *that* code shouldn't go into 7.2.4. > I think it's best to leave well enough alone. The tarball ships with > working bison output files anyway, so all of this really only matters > to people trying to build 7.2.* from a CVS pull. Okay, fair enough, but if we intend to continue to maintain 7.2.*, shouldn't we at least fix the .y files? We can hack configure to fail if it detects a bison later than 1.75, or we can simply put something in the release notes that says if the regressions fail on error detection it may mean that an incompatible bison was used. -- Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com> writes:
>> I think it's best to leave well enough alone. The tarball ships with
>> working bison output files anyway, so all of this really only matters
>> to people trying to build 7.2.* from a CVS pull.
> Okay, fair enough, but if we intend to continue to maintain 7.2.*,
> shouldn't we at least fix the .y files?
What for? If you've bought the assumption that we aren't going to port
7.2's grammar forward indefinitely, why shouldn't we say it stops with
bison 1.35 rather than 1.75? 1.75 and later are not widely deployed
anyway, as yet. But the more compelling point is *it does not matter*
to our customers, and only barely to us. No one but a very few
developers will ever again build the .y output files for 7.2.* (even
assuming that there are more 7.2.* releases, which I doubt). Doesn't
seem worth expending any effort on, to me. We have other, more
productive things to do ...
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com> writes: > >> I think it's best to leave well enough alone. The tarball ships with > >> working bison output files anyway, so all of this really only matters > >> to people trying to build 7.2.* from a CVS pull. > > > Okay, fair enough, but if we intend to continue to maintain 7.2.*, > > shouldn't we at least fix the .y files? > > What for? If you've bought the assumption that we aren't going to port > 7.2's grammar forward indefinitely, why shouldn't we say it stops with > bison 1.35 rather than 1.75? 1.75 and later are not widely deployed > anyway, as yet. Okay, fair enough. I'll take your word for this (no idea how to determine how widely bison 1.75 and later are deployed). > But the more compelling point is *it does not matter* > to our customers, and only barely to us. No one but a very few > developers will ever again build the .y output files for 7.2.* (even > assuming that there are more 7.2.* releases, which I doubt). Doesn't > seem worth expending any effort on, to me. We have other, more > productive things to do ... Agreed. I wasn't aware, previously, that our source distributions shipped with .c files generated from the .y files. That said, if the parser's gram.y file is anything to go by, the fixes to make it work with bison 1.75 are trivial, so if you change your mind I'll be happy to do the work. -- Kevin Brown kevin@sysexperts.com
On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 21:30, Kevin Brown wrote: > > That said, if the parser's gram.y file is anything to go by, the fixes > to make it work with bison 1.75 are trivial, so if you change your > mind I'll be happy to do the work. > If your gung ho about doing the work, I see no reason not to do it and post it to patches or someplace else (gborg?). That way if someone comes along and complains they can't compile it with a new bison, we can always say "Kevin Brown made a patch for that, you can get it at XXX". Robert Treat