From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Extending outfuncs support to utility statements
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:56:44 +0200
Message-ID: <9b197806-17ee-acba-0e70-01263aa46e79@enterprisedb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4159834.1657405226@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <4159834.1657405226@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On 10.07.22 00:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> We've long avoided building I/O support for utility-statement node
> types, mainly because it didn't seem worth the trouble to write and
> maintain such code by hand. Now that the automatic node-support-code
> generation patch is in, that argument is gone, and it's just a matter
> of whether the benefits are worth the backend code bloat. I can
> see two benefits worth considering:
This is also needed to be able to store utility statements in (unquoted)
SQL function bodies. I have some in-progress code for that that I need
to dust off. IIRC, there are still some nontrivial issues to work
through on the reading side. I don't have a problem with enabling the
outfuncs side in the meantime.
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: peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Extending outfuncs support to utility statements
In-Reply-To: <9b197806-17ee-acba-0e70-01263aa46e79@enterprisedb.com>
* 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