pá 15. 12. 2023 v 16:16 odesílatel David G. Johnston
<david.g.johnston@gmail.com> napsal:
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 8:05 AM Josef Šimánek <josef.simanek@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> pá 15. 12. 2023 v 15:50 odesílatel Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
>> >
>> > Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at> writes:
>> > > On Fri, 2023-12-15 at 13:21 +0100, Josef Šimánek wrote:
>> > >> Inspired by Simon Riggs' keynote talk at PGCounf.eu 2023 sharing list
>> > >> of ideas for PostgreSQL
>> > >> (https://riggs.business/blog/f/postgresql-todo-2023), I have crafted a
>> > >> quick patch to do SQL syntax validation.
>> > >>
>> > >> What do you think?
>> >
>> > > I like the idea. But what will happen if the SQL statement references
>> > > tables or other objects, since we have no database?
>> >
>> > This seems like a fairly useless wart to me. What does it do that
>> > you can't do better with existing facilities (psql etc)?
>>
>> Per my experience, this is mostly useful during development to catch
>> syntax errors super early.
>
>
> I'd suggest helping this project get production capable since it already is trying to integrate with the development
ecosystemyou describe here.
>
> https://github.com/supabase/postgres_lsp
Indeed LSP is the one of the targets of this feature. Currently it is
using https://github.com/pganalyze/libpg_query under the hood probably
because of the same reasons I have described (parser is not available
in public APIs of postgres_fe.h or libpq). Exposing basic parser
capabilities in postgres binary itself and also on SQL level by
pg_check_syntax function can prevent the need of "hacking" pg parser
to be accessible outside of server binary.
> I agree that developing this as a new executable for the purpose is needed in order to best conform to existing
conventions.
>
> David J.
>