st 15. 5. 2024 v 21:33 odesílatel David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> napsal:
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 12:18 PM <walther@technowledgy.de> wrote:
>>
>> Tom Lane:
>> >> This is really what is missing for the ecosystem. A libpqparser for
>> >> tools to use: Formatters, linters, query rewriters, simple syntax
>> >> checkers... they are all missing access to postgres' own parser.
>> >
>> > To get to that, you'd need some kind of agreement on what the syntax
>> > tree is. I doubt our existing implementation would be directly useful
>> > to very many tools, and even if it is, do they want to track constant
>> > version-to-version changes?
>>
>> Correct, on top of what the syntax tree currently has, one would
>> probably need:
>> - comments
>> - locations (line number / character) for everything, including those of
>> comments
>>
>
> I'm with the original patch idea at this point. A utility that simply runs text through the parser, not parse
analysis,and answers the question: "Were you able to parse this?" has both value and seems like something that can be
patchedinto core in a couple of hundred lines, not thousands, as has already been demonstrated.
>
> Sure, other questions are valid and other goals exist in the ecosystem, but that doesn't diminish this one which is
sufficientlyjustified for my +1 on the idea.
>
> Now, in my ideal world something like this could be made as an extension so that it can work on older versions and
nothave to be maintained by core. And likely grow more features over time. Is there anything fundamental about this
thatprevents it being implemented in an extension and, if so, what can we add to core in v18 to alleviate that
limitation?
Like extension providing additional binary? Or what kind of extension
do you mean? One of the original ideas was to be able to do so (parse
query) without running postgres itself. Could extension be useful
without running postgres backend?
> David J.
>
