Thread

1. ECPG Semantic Analysis

   Juan Rodrigo Alejandro Burgos Mella <rodrigoburgosmella@gmail.com> — 2023-06-23T04:21:48Z

   Hi
   I have a modified version of ECPG, to which I gave the ability to do
   semantic analysis of SQL statements. Where can you share it or with whom
   can I discuss it?
   
   Atte.
   JRBM
   

2. Re: ECPG Semantic Analysis

   Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> — 2023-06-23T05:01:13Z

   On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 12:21:48AM -0400, Juan Rodrigo Alejandro Burgos Mella wrote:
   > I have a modified version of ECPG, to which I gave the ability to do
   > semantic analysis of SQL statements. Where can you share it or with whom
   > can I discuss it?
   
   I cannot say what kind of problem this solves and/or if this is useful
   as a feature of the ECPG driver in PostgreSQL core itself, but you
   could consider submitting a patch for integration into core.  See for
   example here:
   https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Submitting_a_Patch
   
   Note that things are pretty old-school around here, as all the
   development discussions are done by email on the mailing list
   pgsql-hackers, mostly.
   --
   Michael
   

3. Re: ECPG Semantic Analysis

   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2023-06-23T11:06:32Z

   Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
   > On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 12:21:48AM -0400, Juan Rodrigo Alejandro Burgos Mella wrote:
   >> I have a modified version of ECPG, to which I gave the ability to do
   >> semantic analysis of SQL statements. Where can you share it or with whom
   >> can I discuss it?
   
   > I cannot say what kind of problem this solves and/or if this is useful
   > as a feature of the ECPG driver in PostgreSQL core itself, but you
   > could consider submitting a patch for integration into core.
   
   TBH I'd have to discourage you from expecting that such a patch would
   be accepted.  ECPG is pretty much of a development backwater nowadays.
   We keep maintaining it because it's (mostly) not too much trouble
   thanks to the work that was done years ago to auto-generate its
   grammar from the main grammar.  However, adding any sort of semantic
   analysis to it seems like it'd take an enormous amount of new C code
   that would then have to be kept in sync (by hand) with the backend
   parser.  Testing such a thing seems like a big time sink as well.
   I seriously doubt that we'd be willing to take on such a maintenance
   burden.
   
   			regards, tom lane