Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification

On 3/22/16 7:28 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:55 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
>> On 3/17/16 9:01 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that
>>> there are an awful lot of cases where extension authors haven't been
>>> able to quite do what they want to do without core changes because
>>> they couldn't get control in quite the right place; or they could do
>>> it but they had to cut-and-paste a lot of code.
>>
>> FWIW, I've certainly run into this at least once, maybe twice. The case I
>> can think of offhand is doing function resolution with variant. I don't
>> remember the details anymore, but my recollection is that to get what I
>> needed I would have needed to copy huge swaths of the rewrite code.
>
> Amen, I have been doing that a couple of days ago with some elog stuff.

Any ideas on ways to address this? Adding more hooks in random places 
every time we stumble across something doesn't seem like a good method.

One thing I've wondered about is making it easier to find specific 
constructs in a parsed query so that you can make specific 
modifications. I recall looking at that once and finding a roadblock 
(maybe a bunch of functions were static?)
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com