Re: Basic JSON support

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Basic JSON support
Date: 2010-10-05 01:09:12
Message-ID: 4CAA7AB8.5050205@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/04/2010 08:00 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
>> But having said that, I wonder whether bison/flex are really the best
>> tool for the job in the first place. From what I understand of JSON
>> (which admittedly ain't much) a bison parser seems like overkill:
>> it'd probably be both bloated and slow compared to a simple handwritten
>> recursive-descent parser.
> This appears not to be necessary. The author of JSONval has indicated
> that, should we choose to include it in PostgreSQL 9.1, he is open to
> re-licensing.
>
> So on a completely *technical* basis, do we want to use JSONval?

I agree with Tom that a hand-cut RD parser is much more likely to be the
way to go. We should not use bison/flex for parsing data values.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Kupershmidt 2010-10-05 01:17:05 Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2010-10-05 00:00:09 Re: Basic JSON support