>
> On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 12:01 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
>
>> Please find attached the patch, and thanks to Neil Conway and Korry
>> Douglas for the code, and to Jan Wieck for helping me hammer out the
>> scheme above. Mistakes are all mine ;)
>
> I see no negative comments to this patch on -hackers.
>
> This was discussed here
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/PgCon_2008_Developer_Meeting#SQL.2FMED
> and I had understood the consensus to be that we would go ahead with
> this?
>
> The notes say "Heikki doesn't think this is a long term solution", but
> in the following discussion it was the *only* way of doing this that
> will work with non-PostgreSQL databases. So it seems like the way we
> would want to go, yes?
>
> So, can we add this to the CommitFest July page so it can receive some
> substantial constructive/destructive comments?
>
> This could be an important feature in conjunction with Hot Standby.
The notes say at the end:
"Jan thinks that showing the node tree will work better. But others don't
agree with him -- it wouldn't work for PL/perlU. But Jan thinks it would
work to give it a pointer to the parse tree and the range, we'd need to
add an access function for the PL."
For the record, I agree with Jan's suggestion of passing a pointer to the
parse tree, and offline gave David a suggestion verbally as to how this
could be handled for PL/PerlU.
I don't think we should be tied too closely to a string representation,
although possibly the first and simplest callback function would simply
stringify the quals.
cheers
andrew
