Feedback-ID: i131946ab:Fastmail
Message-ID: <9b197806-17ee-acba-0e70-01263aa46e79@enterprisedb.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2022 15:56:44 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Subject: Re: Extending outfuncs support to utility statements
Content-Language: en-US
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
References: <4159834.1657405226@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
In-Reply-To: <4159834.1657405226@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9b197806-17ee-acba-0e70-01263aa46e79%40enterprisedb.com>
Precedence: bulk

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.