From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
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 15:30:26 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRCgwN1drV0V7EWQC8eacYbF091nGpG7BGpQFaFG1mY1xg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2016-04-18 17:25 GMT+02:00 Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>:
> > 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?
>
It depends - can be allowed only one - like plpgsql extensions, or can be
serialized like pg log extensions
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Aleksander Alekseev
> http://eax.me/
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-18 15:34:51 | Re: Spinlocks and semaphores in 9.2 and 9.3 |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-18 15:27:07 | Re: Spinlocks and semaphores in 9.2 and 9.3 |