> On 6 Mar 2023, at 21:45, Gregory Stark (as CFM) <stark....@gmail.com> wrote: > > So.... This patch has been through a lot of commitfests. And it really > doesn't seem that hard to resolve -- Pavel has seemingly been willing > to go along whichever way the wind has been blowing but honestly it > kind of seems like he's just gotten drive-by suggestions and he's put > a lot of work into trying to satisfy them.
Agreed. > He implemented --include-tables-from-file=... etc. Then he implemented > a hand-written parser for a DSL to select objects, then he implemented > a bison parser, then he went back to the hand-written parser. Well, kind of. I was trying to take the patch to the finishing line but was uncomfortable with the hand written parser so I implemented a parser in Bison to replace it with. Not that hand-written parsers are bad per se (or that my bison parser was perfect), but reading quoted identifiers across line boundaries tend to require a fair amount of handwritten code. Pavel did not object to this version, but it was objected to by two other committers. At this point [0] I stepped down from trying to finish it as the approach I was comfortable didn't gain traction (which is totally fine). Downthread from this the patch got a lot of reviews from Julien with the old parser back in place. > Can we get some consensus on whether the DSL looks right I would consider this pretty settled. > and whether the hand-written parser is sensible. This is the part where a committer who wants to pursue the hand-written parser need to step up. With the amount of review received it's hopefully pretty close. -- Daniel Gustafsson [0] 098531e1-fba9-4b7d-884e-0a4363eee...@yesql.se
