| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: automatically generating node support functions |
| Date: | 2022-02-14 23:23:48 |
| Message-ID: | 20220214232348.dt3uxaoq3rdka2aj@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2022-02-14 12:09:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm in favor of moving forward with this. I do not like the
> libclang-based approach that Andres was pushing, because of the
> jump in developer tooling requirements that it'd cause.
FWIW, while I don't love the way the header parsing stuff in the patch (vs
using libclang or such), I don't have a real problem with it.
I do however not think it's a good idea to commit something generating
something like the existing node functions vs going for a metadata based
approach at dealing with node functions. That aspect of my patchset is
independent of the libclang vs script debate.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-02-14 23:32:21 | Re: automatically generating node support functions |
| Previous Message | Swaha Miller | 2022-02-14 23:23:07 | Re: support for CREATE MODULE |