Re: Keep ECPG comment for log_min_duration_statement

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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)