> On 27 Mar 2019, at 17:03, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote: > On 27/03/2019 16:44, n.pettik wrote: >> >>> On 27 Mar 2019, at 16:29, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote: >>> On 27/03/2019 16:00, n.pettik wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 26 Mar 2019, at 21:06, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the fixes! This commit LGTM. >>>>> Lets proceed to the next patches, and start >>>>> with a rebase, which is going to be hard. >>>> >>>> Ok. Then I would like to clarify some details to avoid wasting time. >>>> In previous patch version, I used next (reworked) grammar to add >>>> FK constraints using ALTER: >>>> >>>> cmd ::= alter_table_start alter_table_action . >>>> >>>> alter_table_start ::= ALTER TABLE fullname(Z) . (1) >>>> >>>> alter_table_action ::= add_constraint_def. >>>> alter_table_action ::= drop_constraint_def. >>>> alter_table_action ::= rename. >>>> >>>> add_constraint_def ::= add_constraint_start constraint_def. >>>> >>>> add_constraint_start(N) ::= ADD CONSTRAINT nm(Z). (2) >>>> constraint_def ::= foreign_key_def. >>>> >>>> foreign_key_def ::= FOREIGN KEY LP eidlist(FA) RP REFERENCES nm(T) >>>> eidlist_opt(TA) matcharg(M) refargs(R) defer_subclause_opt(D). >>>> >>>> Now obviously I can’t use it since foreign_key_def should call >>>> create_fk_def_init() which in turn requires table name and name >>>> of constraint defined in rules (1) and (2). >>>> >>>> Why I want to use grammar mentioned above: it allows to remove >>>> code duplication. Rules to parse constraints are defined three times: >>>> >>>> 1. ccons rule - that is part of column definition: …, a INT REFERENCES t1); >>>> 2. tcons rule - that is part of CREATE TABLE: …, CONSTRAINT c FOREIGN KEY …); >>>> 3. ALTER TABLE statement >>>> >>>> All of them use the same grammar to parse statement starting from >>>> REFERENCES keyword. The same applies to UNIQUE and CHECK >>>> constraints. >>>> >>>> IDK how to avoid using alter_entity_def_init() and create_constraint_def_init() >>>> and at the same time divide constraint definition into several stages. >>>> >>>> Ofc, we can still use simple approach like: >>>> >>>> cmd ::= ALTER TABLE fullname(Z) ADD CONSTRAINT nm(Z) FOREIGN KEY >>>> LP eidlist(FA) RP REFERENCES nm(T) eidlist_opt(TA) matcharg(M) >>>> refargs(R) defer_subclause_opt(D) >>>> >>>> cmd ::= ALTER TABLE fullname(Z) ADD CONSTRAINT nm(Z) UNIQUE >>>> LP sortlist(X) RP >>>> >>>> cmd ::= ALTER TABLE fullname(Z) ADD CONSTRAINT nm(Z) PRIMARY KEY >>>> LP sortlist(X) RP >>>> >>>> cmd ::= ALTER TABLE fullname(Z) ADD CONSTRAINT nm(Z) CHECK … >>>> >>>> cmd ::= ALTER TABLE fullname(Z) RENAME TO nm(N) . >>>> >>>> Is this OK? >>>> >>> >>> Obviously, it is not. Why can't you define this? >>> >>> alter_table_start(T) ::= ALTER TABLE fullname(T) >>> alter_add_constraint(T, N) ::= alter_table_start(T) ADD CONSTRAINT nm(N). >> >> Lemon can’t use two aliases as rule parameters at the same time. >> Instead we can introduce *another one* local struct to hold these names. > > Yes, you can define a structure in parse.y to store these two parameters, > and unpack it back inside the concrete rules. It means, that such a > helper struct will never be stored anywhere out of parse.y. > >> Anyway my initial worry was not about duplication of ALTER TABLE CREATE CONSTRAINT, >> but rather of constraints grammar (i.e. starting from FOREIGN KEY…). > > For constraints grammar you can consult the standard. I do not remember > how it defines FOREIGN KEY rules, if it does at all. Personally for me > it looks ok. Thank you for your feedback. I’m going to send rebased version of top-most patches soon. >>> cmd ::= alter_add_constraint(T, N) FOREIGN KEY ... >>> cmd ::= alter_add_constraint(T, N) UNIQUE LP sortlist(X) RP >>> cmd ::= alter_add_constraint(T, N) PRIMARY KEY LP sortlist(X) RP >>> cmd ::= alter_add_constraint(T, N) CHECK ... >>> cmd ::= alter_table_start RENAME TO nm(N) . >>> >>> Then inside each cmd you have both table and constraint names.