Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 18:25:23 +0300
From: Aleksander Alekseev <a.alekseev@postgrespro.ru>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Arcadiy Ivanov <arcadiy@gmail.com>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Parser extensions (maybe for 10?)
Message-ID: <20160418182523.3f70ad88@fujitsu>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAFj8pRA6hAG3kg+iANEad+7b+u_Y-Pqnaz-q0TbwBX4h=5h_Yw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <570C7B5A.9070309@gmail.com>
	<5688.1460437831@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAFj8pRA6hAG3kg+iANEad+7b+u_Y-Pqnaz-q0TbwBX4h=5h_Yw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

> 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/


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers