| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: automatically generating node support functions |
| Date: | 2022-07-12 19:49:11 |
| Message-ID: | 1739895.1657655351@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 11.07.22 19:57, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So at this point I'm rather attracted to the idea of reverting to
>> a manually-maintained NodeTag enum. We know how to avoid ABI
>> breakage with that, and it's not exactly the most painful part
>> of adding a new node type.
> One of the nicer features is that you now get to see the numbers
> assigned to the enum tags, like
> T_LockingClause = 91,
> T_XmlSerialize = 92,
> T_PartitionElem = 93,
> so that when you get an error like "unsupported node type: %d", you can
> just look up what it is.
Yeah, I wasn't thrilled about reverting that either. I think the
defenses I installed in eea9fa9b2 should be sufficient to deal
with the risk.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-07-12 20:31:39 | Re: should check interrupts in BuildRelationExtStatistics ? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-07-12 19:45:43 | Re: Remove trailing newlines from pg_upgrade's messages |