On 12 April 2016 at 13:51, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Craig Ringer <cr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > The other area where there's room for extension without throwing out the
> > whole thing and rebuilding is handling of new top-level statements. We
> can
> > probably dispatch the statement text to a sub-parser provided by an
> > extension that registers interest in that statement name when we attempt
> to
> > parse it and fail. Even then I'm pretty sure it won't be possible to do
> so
> > while still allowing multi-statements. I wish we didn't support
> > multi-statements, but we're fairly stuck with them.
> Well, as I said, I've been there and done that.  Things get sticky
> when you notice that those "new top-level statements" would like to
> contain sub-clauses (e.g. arithmetic expressions) that should be defined
> by the core grammar.  And maybe the extension would also like to
> define additions to the expression grammar, requiring a recursive
> callback into the extension.  It gets very messy very fast.

Yuck. You'd ping-pong between two parsers, and have to try to exchange
sensible starting states. Point taken.

So even that seemingly not-that-bad restricted option turns out to be far
from it, which just goes to show what a pit of snakes parser extensibility

 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Reply via email to