| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Event Triggers: adding information |
| Date: | 2013-01-18 18:59:17 |
| Message-ID: | 11782.1358535557@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Andres Freund escribi:
>> Dimitri's earlier patches had support for quite some commands via
>> deparsing and while its a noticeable amount of code it seemed to work
>> ok.
>> The last revision I could dig out is
>> https://github.com/dimitri/postgres/blob/d2996303c7bc6daa08cef23e3d5e07c3afb11191/src/backend/utils/adt/ddl_rewrite.c
> I looked at that code back then and didn't like it very much. The
> problem I see (as Robert does, I think) is that it raises the burden
> when you change the grammar -- you now need to edit not only gram.y, but
> the ddl_rewrite.c stuff to ensure your new thing can be reverse-parsed.
Well, that burden already exists for non-utility statements --- why
should utility statements get a pass? Other than that we tend to invent
new utility syntax freely, which might be a good thing to discourage
anyhow.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2013-01-18 19:14:58 | Re: in-catalog Extension Scripts and Control parameters (templates?) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-01-18 18:54:58 | Re: missing rename support |