From: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Arcadiy Ivanov <arcadiy(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parser extensions (maybe for 10?) |
Date: | 2016-04-18 15:25:23 |
Message-ID: | 20160418182523.3f70ad88@fujitsu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I cannot to imagine extensible parser based on bison. But the parser
> can be replaced by custom parser.
>
> Some like pgpool or pgbouncer does. The extension can assign own
> parser. Custom parser will be called first, and the integrated parser
> will be used from extension or as fallback. This can helps with new
> statements for background workers, theoretically it can helps with
> extending PostgreSQL SQL. Custom parser can do translation from SQL1
> to SQL2 dialect, or can do translation from SQL1 to internal calls.
> The custom parser usually should not implement full SQL - only few
> statements.
>
> Is it this idea more workable?
What if there are two or more contribs that extend the parser? Can we
be sure that these contribs will not conflict?
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
http://eax.me/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-18 15:27:07 | Re: Spinlocks and semaphores in 9.2 and 9.3 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-18 15:24:07 | Re: Spinlocks and semaphores in 9.2 and 9.3 |