Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 06:00:12AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> ne 2. 10. 2022 v 22:52 odesílatel Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
> napsal:
>
> > > On 2 Oct 2022, at 18:04, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > > On 2022-10-02 00:19:59 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > >> On 2022-10-01 23:56:59 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > >>> On 2022-09-12 09:58:37 +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > >>>> Correct, fixed in the attached.
> > >>>
> > >>> Updated patch adding meson compatibility attached.
> > >>
> > >> Err, forgot to amend one hunk :(
> > >
> > > That fixed it on all platforms but windows, due to copy-pasto. I really
> > should
> > > have stopped earlier yesterday...
> >
> > Thanks for updating the patch!
> >
> > The parser in the original submission was -1'd by me, and the current
> > version
> > proposed as an alternative. This was subsequently -1'd as well but no
> > updated
> > patch with a rewritten parser has been posted. So this is now stalled
> > again.
> >
>
> You started rewriting it, but you didn't finish it.
>
> Unfortunately, there is not a clean opinion on using bison's parser for
> this purpose. I understand that the complexity of this language is too low,
> so the benefit of using bison's gramatic is low too. Personally, I have not
> any problem using bison for this purpose. For this case, I think we compare
> two similarly long ways, but unfortunately, customers that have a problem
> with long command lines still have this problem.
>
> Can we go forward? Daniel is strongly against handwritten parser. Is there
> somebody strongly against bison's based parser? There is not any other way.

I don't have a strong opinion either, but it seems that 2 people argued against
a bison parser (vs only 1 arguing for) and the fact that the current habit is
to rely on hand written parsers for simple cases (e.g. jsonapi.c /
pg_parse_json()), it seems that we should go back to Pavel's original parser.

I only had a quick look but it indeed seems trivial, it just maybe need a bit
of refactoring to avoid some code duplication (getFiltersFromFile is
duplicated, and getDatabaseExcludeFiltersFromFile could be removed if
getFiltersFromFile knew about the 2 patterns).