|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: Extending outfuncs support to utility statements|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> 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.
> 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.
Oh! I'd not thought of that, but yes that is a plausible near-term
requirement for readfuncs support for utility statements. So my
concern about suppressing those is largely a waste of effort.
There might be enough node types that are raw-parse-tree-only,
but not involved in utility statements, to make it worth
continuing to suppress readfuncs support for them. But I kinda
doubt it. I'll try to get some numbers later today.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Ranier Vilela||2022-07-11 14:18:22||Re: Reducing Memory Consumption (aset and generation)|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2022-07-11 14:11:49||Re: Making CallContext and InlineCodeBlock less special-case-y|