Hi,
On 2021-09-15 16:35:53 -0400, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 3:55 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2021-09-15 12:57:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Agreed - it doesn't make sense to me to have a hook that only replaces raw
> > parsing, without also hooking into parse-analysis. ISTM that the least a
> > patchset going for a parser hook would have to do is to do sufficient
> > restructuring so that one could hook together into both raw parsing and
> > analysis. It could still be two callbacks, but perhaps we'd ensure that
> > they're both set.
> >
>
> This is a bad example as it doesn't require semantic analysis from
> Postgres.
"it"? I assume you mean a different type of join? If so, I'm highly doubtful -
without semantic analysis you can't really handle column references.
> While most of the tools out there tend to do simple replacement,
> this can be done within a custom parser by simply walking its own AST,
> evaluating join conditions against the expression, and rewriting the join
> accordingly. Or, do you have an example that couldn't be done this way
> within a custom parser?
You cannot just "evaluate conditions" in a raw parse tree... You don't even
know what things are functions, columns etc, nor to what relation a column
belongs.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
