Re: Extending outfuncs support to utility statements

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> 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.

BTW, I experimented with trying to enable WRITE_READ_PARSE_PLAN_TREES
for utility statements, and found that the immediate problem is that
Constraint and a couple of other node types lack read functions
(they're the ones marked "custom_read_write, no_read" in parsenodes.h).
They have out functions, so writing the inverses seems like it's just
something nobody ever got around to. Perhaps there are deeper problems
lurking behind that one, though.

regards, tom lane