I'm pretty sure the problem I found is related to this, but I found that ecpg doesn't process booleans correctly- this was in a old version of postgres (I think it was 7.4.2). I traced it down in the code, and there is a section that defines the values to be "yes" or "no", but then further processing looks for "true" or "false", so the end result is that a boolean is ALWAYS false, because the 2 filters don't match. If you're interested in more detail, I have code fixes (they are at work so I'll send on Monday). Mark
--- On Fri, 11/20/09, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: From: Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] ecpg & 8.3 -> 8.4 migration To: "Bosco Rama" <postg...@boscorama.com> Cc: pgsql-interfa...@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, "Michael Meskes" <mes...@postgresql.org> Date: Friday, November 20, 2009, 5:02 PM Bosco Rama <postg...@boscorama.com> writes: > According to the PG docs 'server' is a *non-reserved* > keyword. Does ecpg treat it as a reserved word? Upon poking around in the ecpg sources, I discover that it has its own list of "unreserved" keywords and pays no attention whatsoever to the core grammar's unreserved_keyword list. I can hardly find words to express my dissatisfaction with that. The unreserved_keyword list might not be the single most-likely-to-change production in the core grammar, but it's got to be right up there in the top two or three. This little shortcut means that all the work done last year to generate the ecpg grammar from core was practically useless --- we still have to worry about manually maintaining the ecpg grammar any time we change core. This has *got* to be fixed. The lack of obvious feedback about keywords not included in any keyword list means that manual maintenance is guaranteed to fail, as indeed it's already done, per this report. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-interfaces mailing list (pgsql-interfa...@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-interfaces
