| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr> |
| Subject: | Re: Deparsing DDL command strings |
| Date: | 2012-10-05 15:28:27 |
| Message-ID: | 201210051728.28251.andres@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Friday, October 05, 2012 04:24:55 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > On Friday, October 05, 2012 04:03:03 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Why don't you just pass the original query string, instead of writing
> >> a mass of maintenance-requiring new code to reproduce it?
> >
> > Its not easy to know which tables are referenced in e.g. an ALTER TABLE
> > statement if the original statement didn't schema qualify everything.
>
> What he's talking about is deparsing the raw grammar output, which by
> definition contains no more information than is in the query string.
> Deparsing post-parse-analysis trees is a different problem (for which
> code already exists, unlike the raw-tree case).
Sure. I am not saying Dimitri's approach is perfect. I am just listing some of
reasons why I think just using the raw input string isn't sufficient...
Andres
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2012-10-05 15:52:54 | Re: 64-bit API for large object |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-10-05 14:50:43 | Re: ALTER command reworks |