Re: some grammar refactoring - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: some grammar refactoring
Date
Msg-id 188bf495-50d3-74f3-abe7-fa3340bc2863@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: some grammar refactoring  (Mark Dilger <mark.dilger@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: some grammar refactoring
List pgsql-hackers
On 2020-05-25 21:09, Mark Dilger wrote:
> I don't think it moves the needle too much, either.  But since your patch is entirely a refactoring patch and not a
featurepatch, I thought it would be fair to ask larger questions about how the code should be structured.  I like using
enumsand switch statements and getting better error messages, but there doesn't seem to be any fundamental reason why
thatshould be in the command execution step.  It feels like a layering violation to me.
 

Most utility commands don't have an intermediate parse analysis pass. 
They just go straight from the grammar to the execution.  Maybe that 
could be rethought, but that's the way it is now.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: password_encryption default
Next
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions