Hi, On 2022-02-14 12:09:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I'm in favor of moving forward with this. I do not like the > libclang-based approach that Andres was pushing, because of the > jump in developer tooling requirements that it'd cause.
FWIW, while I don't love the way the header parsing stuff in the patch (vs using libclang or such), I don't have a real problem with it. I do however not think it's a good idea to commit something generating something like the existing node functions vs going for a metadata based approach at dealing with node functions. That aspect of my patchset is independent of the libclang vs script debate. Greetings, Andres Freund
