2009/8/10 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Pavel Stehule<pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> new patch add new contrib "transformations" with three modules
>>> anotation, decode and json.
>
>> These are pretty good examples, but the whole thing still feels a bit
>> grotty to me. The set of syntax transformations that can be performed
>> with a hook of this type is extremely limited - in particular, it's
>> the set of things where the parser thinks it's valid and that the
>> structure is reasonably similar to what you have in mind, but the
>> meaning is somewhat different. The fact that two of your three
>> examples require your named and mixed parameters patch seems to me to
>> be evidence of that.
>
> I finally got around to looking at these examples, and I still don't
> find them especially compelling. Both the decode and the json example
> could certainly be done with regular function definitions with no need
> for this hook.
please, show it.
regards
Pavel Stehule
The => to AS transformation maybe not, but so what?
> The reason we don't have that one in core is not technological.
>
> The really fundamental problem with this hook is that it can't do
> anything except create syntactic sugar, and a pretty darn narrow class
> of syntactic sugar at that. Both the raw parse tree and the transformed
> tree still have to be valid within the core system's understanding.
> What's more, since there's no hook in ruleutils.c, what is going to come
> out of the system (when dumping, examining a view, etc) is the
> transformed expression --- so you aren't really hiding any complexity
> from the user, you're just providing a one-time shorthand that will be
> expanded into a notation he also has to be familiar with.
>
> Now you could argue that we've partly created that restriction by
> insisting that the hook be in transformFuncCall and not transformExpr.
> But that only restricts the subset of raw parse trees that you can play
> with; it doesn't change any of the other restrictions.
>
> Lastly, I don't think the problem of multiple hook users is as easily
> solved as Pavel claims. These contrib modules certainly fail to solve
> it. Try unloading (or re-LOADing) them in a different order than they
> were loaded.
>
> So on the whole I still think this is a solution looking for a problem,
> and that any problems it could solve are better solved elsewhere.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
