> As Tom says, we can't easily break it down into multiple co-operating
> pieces, so lets forget that as unworkable.
I'm sorry but didn't I just demonstrate the opposite? If so it's very
easy to prove - give a counterexample. As I understand approach I
described handles cases named by Tom just fine. In fact the idea of
transforming ASTs (a.k.a metaprogramming) is successfully used by
programmers for about 50 years now.
(As a side note - I'm not a native English speaker but I believe such
type of logic is known as "argument from authority".)
> What is possible is a whole new grammar... for example if we imagine
>
> SET client_language_path = 'foo, postgresql'
>
> Works similar to search_path, but not userset. We try to parse
> incoming statements against the foo parser first, if that fails we
> try postgresql. The default setting would be simply 'postgresql', so
> no match -> syntax error.
>
> We could make that easier by making the postgresql parser a plugin
> itself. So to produce a new one you just copy the files, modify them
> as needed then insert a new record into pg_language as an extension.
>
I think its not an extension but a replacement of a grammar. This
approach implies that every extension implements a parser from scratch.
Not sure if anyone will do it in practice to change SQL syntax a little
bit.
I'm not telling that such a feature will be completely worthless. But
why not to make a step further and not to implement plugable protocols?
E.g. make PostgreSQL compatible with MySQL and/or MongoDB? Or maybe
implement SQL dialect that forbids implicit type conversion. Or add
build-in connection pooling mechanism. I wonder though if all of this
could already be implemented as an extension without any changes in
PostgreSQL core.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
http://eax.me/
