Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> writes: >> One thing that I'm not quite satisfied with is the business with >> non-top-level RawStmt nodes in some utility statements. >> ... >> So I'm now thinking that it might be better if the grammar produced >> RawStmt only at top level, and anybody who calls pg_analyze_and_rewrite >> on sub-sections of a utility statement has to cons up a RawStmt to put >> at the top of the sub-query.
> Why not. The lazy programmer I am notices that there seems to be 6
> instances, this is not too bad, some of which are already dealt with. The
> RawStmt may not need to be allocated dynamically, a stack instance could
> be enough.
Here's a v2 that does it like that. It ends up being about 30 fewer lines
of code overall, despite there being four places that have to make ad-hoc
RawStmt nodes. On the whole I feel like this is cleaner, although there's
room to argue that. Still, the extra cruft is in places that I'm
suspicious are wrong anyway, as I noted.
regards, tom lane
stmt-list-rewrite-2.patch.gz
Description: stmt-list-rewrite-2.patch.gz
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
