Hi,
On 2022-02-14 12:09:47 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm in favor of moving forward with this. I do not like the
> libclang-based approach that Andres was pushing, because of the
> jump in developer tooling requirements that it'd cause.
FWIW, while I don't love the way the header parsing stuff in the patch (vs
using libclang or such), I don't have a real problem with it.
I do however not think it's a good idea to commit something generating
something like the existing node functions vs going for a metadata based
approach at dealing with node functions. That aspect of my patchset is
independent of the libclang vs script debate.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
