Horton

Re: Extending outfuncs support to utility statements

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2022-07-12T22:01:39Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Attachments

I wrote:
> There might be enough node types that are raw-parse-tree-only,
> but not involved in utility statements, to make it worth
> continuing to suppress readfuncs support for them.  But I kinda
> doubt it.  I'll try to get some numbers later today.

Granting that we want write/read support for utility statements,
it seems that what we can save by suppressing raw-parse-tree-only
nodes is only about 10kB.  That's clearly not worth troubling over
in the grand scheme of things, so I suggest that we just open the
floodgates as attached.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Avoid copying undefined data in _readA_Const().

  2. Enable WRITE_READ_PARSE_PLAN_TREES of rewritten utility statements

  3. Implement WRITE_READ_PARSE_PLAN_TREES for raw parse trees

  4. Don't lose precision for float fields of Nodes.

  5. Fix write/read of empty string fields in Nodes.

  6. Add read support for some missing raw parse nodes

  7. Fix reading of BitString nodes

  8. Fix reading of most-negative integer value nodes