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

út 7. 3. 2023 v 3:47 odesílatel Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> napsal:

> 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.cfm@gmail.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.
>

rebase + enhancing about related option from a563c24

Regards

Pavel