Re: Extending outfuncs support to utility statements

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. Now that the automatic node-support-code
> generation patch is in, that argument is gone, and it's just a matter
> of whether the benefits are worth the backend code bloat. I can
> see two benefits worth considering:

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.