Re: proposal: possibility to read dumped table's name from file
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
From: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>, Erik Rijkers <er@xs4all.nl>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>,
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>, Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000@gmail.com>, vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-10-07T05:26:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- pg_dump-filter-20221007.patch (text/x-patch) patch
Hi I am sending version with handy written parser and meson support po 3. 10. 2022 v 6:34 odesílatel Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> napsal: > Hi, > > > You started rewriting it, but you didn't finish it. > > > > Unfortunately, there is not a clean opinion on using bison's parser for > > this purpose. I understand that the complexity of this language is too > low, > > so the benefit of using bison's gramatic is low too. Personally, I have > not > > any problem using bison for this purpose. For this case, I think we > compare > > two similarly long ways, but unfortunately, customers that have a problem > > with long command lines still have this problem. > > > > Can we go forward? Daniel is strongly against handwritten parser. Is > there > > somebody strongly against bison's based parser? There is not any other > way. > > I don't have a strong opinion either, but it seems that 2 people argued > against > a bison parser (vs only 1 arguing for) and the fact that the current habit > is > to rely on hand written parsers for simple cases (e.g. jsonapi.c / > pg_parse_json()), it seems that we should go back to Pavel's original > parser. > > I only had a quick look but it indeed seems trivial, it just maybe need a > bit > of refactoring to avoid some code duplication (getFiltersFromFile is > duplicated, and getDatabaseExcludeFiltersFromFile could be removed if > getFiltersFromFile knew about the 2 patterns). > I checked this code again, and I don't think some refactoring is easy. getFiltersFromFile is not duplicated. It is just probably badly named. These routines are used from pg_dump, pg_dumpall and pg_restore. There are significant differences in supported objects and in types used for returned lists (dumpOptions, SimpleStringList, and RestoreOptions). If I have one routine, then I need to implement some mechanism for specification of supported objects, and a special type that can be used as a proxy between caller and parser to hold lists of parsed values. To be names less confusing I renamed them to read_dump_filters, read_dumpall_filters and read_restore_filters Regards Pavel
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Fix array subscript warnings
- 17935e1fdf0a 17.0 landed
-
Read include/exclude commands for dump/restore from file
- a5cf808be55b 17.0 landed
-
Allow records to span multiple lines in pg_hba.conf and pg_ident.conf.
- 8f8154a503c7 14.0 cited