Horton

Re: Extending outfuncs support to utility statements

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2022-07-11T13:56:44Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
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.

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