Re: [HACKERS] ECPG parse.pl and parse2.pl
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:59:38PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: I propose that we move parse2.pl to parse.pl and only keep the one. I agree, thanks for taking care. Originally I wanted to keep parse.pl around for a bit, so I could run both and compare the output over the development cycle. But with 9.1 being so close, there's no need for the old script anymore. Michael -- Michael Meskes Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) Michael at BorussiaFan dot De, Meskes at (Debian|Postgresql) dot Org Jabber: michael.meskes at googlemail dot com VfL Borussia! Força Barça! Go SF 49ers! Use Debian GNU/Linux, PostgreSQL -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
[HACKERS] ECPG parse.pl and parse2.pl
Surely we don't need parse.pl and parse2.pl? parse.pl, the one that's not used, it already showing signs of semi-bit-rot: Use of assignment to $[ is deprecated at ./parse.pl line 21. I propose that we move parse2.pl to parse.pl and only keep the one. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] ECPG parse.pl and parse2.pl
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes: Surely we don't need parse.pl and parse2.pl? parse.pl, the one that's not used, it already showing signs of semi-bit-rot: Use of assignment to $[ is deprecated at ./parse.pl line 21. I propose that we move parse2.pl to parse.pl and only keep the one. Yes. This was objected to immediately when Michael made it that way in the first place, but he didn't change it. I don't think we need to use HEAD as a repository for obsolete code, when we have a perfectly good SCM. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
