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
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 |