| From: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tristan Partin <tristan(at)partin(dot)io> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: new file format for hba/ident/hosts configuration? |
| Date: | 2026-07-14 23:18:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAN4CZFOkguO=XUWTGvaSYFJ8aiy2yQ_kmZDGGX6FWbZQ2uPDhw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> What are your thoughts on first starting with support for JSONC? It has
> no implications other than comments (single-line and multi-line) and
> trailing commas. We could collaborate and commit that, and then
> subsequently work on JSON5 support. It should enable the JSON5 support
> patches to be even smaller than what you posted already.
I also sent my patchset[1] for JSONC/JSON5. I wanted to organize it
into smaller patches and stress test it before sharing, but I think
it's in a good enough shape now.
My logic was similar: the first patch in the series is the JSONC
support, as that's a feature usable on its own.
> Do we want to support JSONC/JSON5 in the incremental parser? My
> inclination is yes so the parsers are consistent in what they support.
I included it for completeness, but the incremental parser has no real
user other than the tests, and it's complex. A patch without that
would be significantly smaller. Most (nearly all) of the corner case
issues I identified while testing the patch were also in that.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tristan Partin | 2026-07-14 23:27:43 | Re: Proposal: new file format for hba/ident/hosts configuration? |
| Previous Message | Zsolt Parragi | 2026-07-14 23:10:51 | Proposal: JSON5 support in the JSON parsers |