Re: automatically generating node support functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: automatically generating node support functions
Date: 2022-07-14 00:49:39
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Just one more thing here ... I really don't like the fact that's response to unparseable input is to silently
ignore it. That's maybe tolerable outside a node struct, but
I think we need a higher standard inside. I experimented with
promoting the commented-out "warn" to "die", and soon learned
that there are two shortcomings:

* We can't cope with the embedded union inside A_Const.
Simplest fix is to move it outside.

* We can't cope with function-pointer fields. The only real
problem there is that some of them spread across multiple lines,
but really that was a shortcoming we'd have to fix sometime

Proposed patch attached.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
improve-gen_node_support-field-parsing.patch text/x-diff 4.3 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2022-07-14 01:30:31 Re: [BUG] Logical replication failure "ERROR: could not map filenode "base/13237/442428" to relation OID" with catalog modifying txns
Previous Message Justin Pryzby 2022-07-13 23:54:45 Re: fix stats_fetch_consistency value in postgresql.conf.sample