|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 Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 02:33:59PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> 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?
Given the total lack of answer on the various improvements I suggested, I'm
assuming that no one is interested in that feature, so I'm marking it as
|Next Message||Julien Rouhaud||2022-01-17 00:40:38||Re: drop tablespace failed when location contains .. on win32|
|Previous Message||Julien Rouhaud||2022-01-17 00:29:36||Re: [PATCH] rename column if exists|