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

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 06, 2023 at 10:20:32PM +0100, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> > On 6 Mar 2023, at 21:45, Gregory Stark (as CFM) <stark(dot)cfm(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > So.... This patch has been through a lot of commitfests. And it really
> > doesn't seem that hard to resolve -- Pavel has seemingly been willing
> > to go along whichever way the wind has been blowing but honestly it
> > kind of seems like he's just gotten drive-by suggestions and he's put
> > a lot of work into trying to satisfy them.
>
> Agreed.

Indeed, I'm not sure I would have had that much patience.

> > He implemented --include-tables-from-file=... etc. Then he implemented
> > a hand-written parser for a DSL to select objects, then he implemented
> > a bison parser, then he went back to the hand-written parser.
>
> Well, kind of. I was trying to take the patch to the finishing line but was
> uncomfortable with the hand written parser so I implemented a parser in Bison
> to replace it with. Not that hand-written parsers are bad per se (or that my
> bison parser was perfect), but reading quoted identifiers across line
> boundaries tend to require a fair amount of handwritten code. Pavel did not
> object to this version, but it was objected to by two other committers.
>
> At this point [0] I stepped down from trying to finish it as the approach I was
> comfortable didn't gain traction (which is totally fine).
>
> Downthread from this the patch got a lot of reviews from Julien with the old
> parser back in place.

Yeah, and the current state seems quite good to me.

> > Can we get some consensus on whether the DSL looks right
>
> I would consider this pretty settled.

Agreed.