From: | "Okano, Naoki" <okano(dot)naoki(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Keep ECPG comment for log_min_duration_statement |
Date: | 2017-02-28 07:05:35 |
Message-ID: | 0B4917A40C80E34BBEC4BE1A7A9AB7E27AB43F@g01jpexmbkw05 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Michael Meskes wrote:
> > > The other option I can see, albeit without looking into details, is
> > > allowing all comments and then testing it for the right syntax after
> > > parsing. This could potentially also solve the above mentioned
> > > option problem.
> >
> > This idea sounds great. But I am not sure that I can understand it
> > correctly.
> >
> > I understood the concept of this idea as following. Is it right?
> > 1. The parser ignores comments/*...*/ as usual. That is, parser does
> > not
> > identify comments as a token.
>
> I guess it'd be easier to accept each comment as a token and then parse the token
> text afterwards.
>
> > 2. After parsing, we parse again only to extract comments.
>
> Not sure if we can do that without creating a lot of overhead.
I see. Based on your advice, I try to make a patch.
I will attach a patch when I finish it.
Regards,
Okano Naoki
Fujitsu
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2017-02-28 07:07:46 | Re: IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion |
Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2017-02-28 06:49:50 | Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) |