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
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Sun, 10 Jul 2022 17:15:25 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <838176.1657499324.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2022 20:28:44 -0400
Message-ID: <838177.1657499324@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/838177.1657499324%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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 b=
enefit
> 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