| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: some grammar refactoring |
| Date: | 2020-05-26 08:28:42 |
| Message-ID: | 188bf495-50d3-74f3-abe7-fa3340bc2863@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-05-25 21:09, Mark Dilger wrote:
> I don't think it moves the needle too much, either. But since your patch is entirely a refactoring patch and not a feature patch, I thought it would be fair to ask larger questions about how the code should be structured. I like using enums and switch statements and getting better error messages, but there doesn't seem to be any fundamental reason why that should be in the command execution step. It feels like a layering violation to me.
Most utility commands don't have an intermediate parse analysis pass.
They just go straight from the grammar to the execution. Maybe that
could be rethought, but that's the way it is now.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2020-05-26 09:13:59 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-05-26 08:25:25 | Re: password_encryption default |