Horton

Re: WIP Incremental JSON Parser

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Jacob Champion <jacob.champion@enterprisedb.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-04-19T18:04:40Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 1:35 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> Are you sure that relying on Temp::File is a good thing overall?  The
> current temporary file knowledge is encapsulated within Utils.pm, with
> files removed or kept depending on PG_TEST_NOCLEAN.  So it would be
> just more consistent to rely on the existing facilities instead?
> test_json_parser is the only code path in the whole tree that directly
> uses File::Temp.  The rest of the TAP tests relies on Utils.pm for
> temp file paths.

Yeah, I think this patch invented a new solution to a problem that
we've solved in a different way everywhere else. I think we should
change it to match what we do in general.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Commits

  1. Post review fixes for test_json_parser test module

  2. Shrink test file for test_json_parser module

  3. Add support for incrementally parsing backup manifests

  4. Introduce a non-recursive JSON parser

  5. Use incremental parsing of backup manifests.