Re: WIP Incremental JSON Parser

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WIP Incremental JSON Parser
Date: 2024-03-20 07:19:39
Message-ID: CAD5tBcJg-Ja3CcY8N+NtziFN8TL8JRWv97s=-siT=Oep2+JGjw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Mar 19, 2024 at 6:07 PM Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> It also removes the frontend exits I had. In the case of stack depth, we
> follow the example of the RD parser and only check stack depth for backend
> code. In the case of the check that the lexer is set up for incremental
> parsing, the exit is replaced by an Assert.
>
>
On second thoughts, I think it might be better if we invent a new error
return code for a lexer mode mismatch.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Naylor 2024-03-20 07:26:55 Re: Change GUC hashtable to use simplehash?
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2024-03-20 07:16:14 Re: Regression tests fail with musl libc because libpq.so can't be loaded