Hi Álvaro,
Thanks for your review.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 4:24 AM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de> wrote:
>
> On 2025-Sep-15, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
> > > It's LGTM. The same pattern is observed in VACUUM, EXPLAIN, and CREATE
> > > PUBLICATION - all use minimal grammar rules that produce generic
> > > option lists, with the actual interpretation done in their respective
> > > implementation files. The moderate complexity in wait.c seems
> > > acceptable.
>
> Actually I find the code in ExecWaitStmt pretty unusual. We tend to use
> lists of DefElem (a name optionally followed by a value) instead of
> individual scattered elements that must later be matched up. Why not
> use utility_option_list instead and then loop on the list of DefElems?
> It'd be a lot simpler.
I took a look at commands like VACUUM and EXPLAIN and they do follow
this pattern. v11 will make use of utility_option_list.
> Also, we've found that failing to surround the options by parens leads
> to pain down the road, so maybe add that. Given that the LSN seems to
> be mandatory, maybe make it something like
>
> WAIT FOR LSN 'xy/zzy' [ WITH ( utility_option_list ) ]
>
> This requires that you make LSN a keyword, albeit unreserved. Or you
> could make it
> WAIT FOR Ident [the rest]
> and then ensure in C that the identifier matches the word LSN, such as
> we do for "permissive" and "restrictive" in
> RowSecurityDefaultPermissive.
Shall make LSN an unreserved keyword as well.
Best,
Xuneng
