Re: Hook for extensible parsing.

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.
Date: 2022-01-17 00:33:34
Message-ID: 20220117003334.oisr3eucfnhutwl5@jrouhaud
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
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