| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Extending outfuncs support to utility statements |
| Date: | 2022-07-11 00:28:44 |
| Message-ID: | 838177.1657499324@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2022-07-10 19:12:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> They're not so much "cold" as "dead", so I don't see the point
>> of having them at all. If we ever start allowing utility commands
>> (besides NOTIFY) in stored rules, we'd need readfuncs support then
>> ... but at least in the short run I don't see that happening.
> It would allow us to test utility outfuncs as part of the
> WRITE_READ_PARSE_PLAN_TREES check. Not that that's worth very much.
Especially now that those are all auto-generated anyway.
> I guess it could be a minor help in making a few more utility commands benefit
> from paralellism?
Again, once we have an actual use-case, enabling that code will be
fine by me. But we don't yet.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-07-11 00:29:30 | Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-07-11 00:15:25 | Re: Extending outfuncs support to utility statements |