On Friday, December 02, 2011 03:09:55 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On Thursday, December 01, 2011 07:21:25 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Making this work cleanly would be a bigger deal than I think you're
> >> thinking.
> > Obviously that depends on the definition of clean...
> > Changing the grammar to make that explicit seems to involve a bit too
> > many changes on a first glance. The cheap way out seems to be to make
> > the decision in analyze.c:transformQuery.
> > Would that be an acceptable way forward?
> ITYM transformStmt, but yeah, somewhere around there is probably
> reasonable. The way I'm imagining this would work is that IntoClause
> disappears from Query altogether: analyze.c would build a utility
> CreateTableAs, pull the IntoClause out of the SelectStmt structure and
> put it into the utility statement, and then proceed much as we do for
> ExplainStmt (and for the same reasons).
Ok. Because my book turned out to be boring I started looking at this. I
wonder if wouldn't be better to do check in directly in raw_parser(). The
advantage would be that that magically would fix the issue of not logging
CTAS/select when using log_statement = ddl and we don't need a snapshot or
such so that shouldn't be a problem.
Any arguments against doing so?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tomas Vondra||Date: 2011-12-03 22:33:20|
|Subject: cannot read pg_class without having selected a database / is this
|Previous:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2011-12-03 21:57:24|
|Subject: Re: Why so few built-in range types?|