Re: Hook for extensible parsing. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Mlodgenski
Subject Re: Hook for extensible parsing.
Date
Msg-id CAB_5SRdvtdiz7ZG92-wDXN5qrvK7nmEPYsvmXhnLkkFTdh+ZaQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Hook for extensible parsing.  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Hook for extensible parsing.  (Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 4:29 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'd like to propose an alternative approach, which is to allow multiple parsers
> to coexist, and let third-party parsers optionally fallback on the core
> parsers.  I'm sending this now as a follow-up of [1] and to avoid duplicated
> efforts, as multiple people are interested in that topic.

The patches all build properly and pass all regressions tests.

> pg_parse_query() will instruct plugins to parse a query at a time.  They're
> free to ignore that mode if they want to implement the 3rd mode.  If so, they
> should either return multiple RawStmt, a single RawStmt with a 0 or
> strlen(query_string) stmt_len, or error out.  Otherwise, they will implement
> either mode 1 or 2, and they should always return a List containing a single
> RawStmt with properly set stmt_len, even if the underlying statement is NULL.
> This is required to properly skip valid strings that don't contain a
> statements, and pg_parse_query() will skip RawStmt that don't contain an
> underlying statement.

Wouldn't we want to only loop through the individual statements if parser_hook
exists? The current patch seems to go through the new code path regardless
of the hook being grabbed.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal - log_full_scan
Next
From: "Drouvot, Bertrand"
Date:
Subject: Re: visibility map corruption