From: | "Okano, Naoki" <okano(dot)naoki(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | "Dr(dot) Michael Meskes" <michael(dot)meskes(at)credativ(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Keep ECPG comment for log_min_duration_statement |
Date: | 2017-02-24 09:25:29 |
Message-ID: | 0B4917A40C80E34BBEC4BE1A7A9AB7E27AAB7C@g01jpexmbkw05 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Michael wrote:
> The reason for not keeping the comments in the statement was simply to
> make the parser simpler. If you added this feature, do we still see a
> reason for keeping the old version? Or in other words, shouldn't we
> make the "enable-parse-comment" version the default without a new
> option?
Thank you for your feedback!
As I said in the first e-mail, there are some restrictions of comment position in my implementation. I am concerned that an error will occur in .pgc files users made in old version.
So, this feature should be a new option.
When the pre-compiler(ECPG) converts C with embedded SQL to normal C code, gram.y is used for syntactic analysis. I need to change gram.y for comments in SQL statement.
But I do not come up with better idea that gram.y is not affected.
If you are interested in my implementation in detail, please check the [WIP]patch I attached.
I am appreciated if you give me any idea or opinion.
Regards,
Okano Naoki
Fujitsu
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
[WIP]enable-parse-comment.patch | application/octet-stream | 13.0 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-02-24 09:34:11 | Re: Proposal : Parallel Merge Join |
Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2017-02-24 09:12:36 | Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) |