On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 05:50:17PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:21:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Oh, I'd forgotten about that thread. I never particularly liked the patch > >> as presented: like Robert, I thought it far too complicated. My > >> inclination would just be to tweak the parser enough so that a simple list > >> of ANDs or ORs (ie, a left-deep raw parse tree) gets flattened. > >> > >> The most likely bet for making that happen in an uncomplicated way would > >> be to alter gram.y's processing: if we had the productions for AND/OR > >> notice whether their left inputs were already AND/OR clauses, they could > >> extend the argument lists instead of building nested clauses. The reason > >> the proposed patch is so complicated is it's trying to avoid recursing > >> while handling a fundamentally recursive data structure, and that's just > >> the hard way to do it. > >> > >> We do need to look at whether there are any implications for ruleutils > >> and other places, though. > > > Where are we on this? Is it being kept for 9.5? > > I think we rejected the patch-as-presented, and no one's bothered to > create a new one, which suggests that the problem isn't all that > important ... > > I suspect the gram.y change I suggest above would be about a ten-line > patch. What makes it less than completely trivial is the need to chase > down all the downstream implications, such as whether ruleutils would > need any work, and whether anything else is expecting parser output > to contain only binary clauses.
OK, thanks for the feedback. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
