From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Michel Pelletier <pelletier(dot)michel(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal to use JSON for Postgres Parser format |
Date: | 2023-10-09 23:11:36 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+6_DkxZMo1ykRuYMk=r3iaaMy1szg46duJyhnNfu-OUA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 20, 2022 at 4:16 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> To explain my earlier guess: reader code for #S(STRUCTNAME ...) can
> bee seen here, though it's being lexed as "PLAN_SYM" so perhaps the
> author of that C already didn't know that was a general syntax for
> Lisp structs. (Example: at a Lisp prompt, if you write (defstruct foo
> x y z) then (make-foo :x 1 :y 2 :z 3), the resulting object will be
> printed as #S(FOO :x 1 :y 2 :z 3), so I'm guessing that the POSTGRES
> Lisp code, which sadly (for me) was ripped out before even that repo
> IIUC, must have used defstruct-based plans.)
That defstruct guess is confirmed by page 36 and nearby of
https://dsf.berkeley.edu/papers/UCB-MS-zfong.pdf.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-10-09 23:20:34 | Re: New WAL record to detect the checkpoint redo location |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-10-09 23:08:05 | Lowering the default wal_blocksize to 4K |