|From:||Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Hook for extensible parsing.|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:21:20AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I do have sympathy for the idea that extensions would like to define
> their own statement types. I just don't see a practical way to do it
> in our existing parser infrastructure. This patch certainly doesn't
> offer that.
Allowing extensions to define their own (utility) statement type is just a
matter of allowing ExtensibleNode as top level statement. As far as I can
see the only change required for that is to give those a specific command tag
in CreateCommandTag(), since transformStmt() default to emitting a utility
command. You can then easily intercept such statement in the utility hook and
fetch your custom struct.
I could do that but I'm assuming that you still wouldn't be satisfied as
custom parser would still be needed, whihc may or may not require to
copy/paste chunks of the core grammar?
If so, do you have any suggestion for an approach you would accept?
|Next Message||Amit Langote||2021-09-24 06:34:03||a comment in joinrel.c: compute_partition_bounds()|
|Previous Message||Amit Kapila||2021-09-24 06:22:33||Re: row filtering for logical replication|