From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Subject: Re: Extending outfuncs support to utility statements
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 20:28:44 -0400
Message-ID: <838177.1657499324@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220711001525.qd3dgo3et3pzaarl@awork3.anarazel.de>
References: <4159834.1657405226@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20220710214348.b63jkf3ko5tkeldz@awork3.anarazel.de>
<816652.1657494772@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20220711001525.qd3dgo3et3pzaarl@awork3.anarazel.de>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2022-07-10 19:12:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> They're not so much "cold" as "dead", so I don't see the point
>> of having them at all. If we ever start allowing utility commands
>> (besides NOTIFY) in stored rules, we'd need readfuncs support then
>> ... but at least in the short run I don't see that happening.
> It would allow us to test utility outfuncs as part of the
> WRITE_READ_PARSE_PLAN_TREES check. Not that that's worth very much.
Especially now that those are all auto-generated anyway.
> I guess it could be a minor help in making a few more utility commands benefit
> from paralellism?
Again, once we have an actual use-case, enabling that code will be
fine by me. But we don't yet.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com
Subject: Re: Extending outfuncs support to utility statements
In-Reply-To: <838177.1657499324@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox