Re: Proposal - Allow extensions to set a Plan Identifier
От | Michael Paquier |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposal - Allow extensions to set a Plan Identifier |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Z-NpwXzwuLR329Pf@paquier.xyz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proposal - Allow extensions to set a Plan Identifier (Sami Imseih <samimseih@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proposal - Allow extensions to set a Plan Identifier
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 04:23:15PM -0500, Sami Imseih wrote: > On 3/25/25 00:47, Sami Imseih wrote: >> 1. Check out the upstream Postgres source for the given version I'm generating jumble code for >> 2. Modify the headers as needed to have the node attributes I want >> 3. Call the gen_node_support.pl via the build process >> 4. Copy out the resulting jumble node funcs/conds > > I like this approach, and the artifacts from #4 will be packed with > the extension. So this comes down to forking the Postgres code to do the job. What I had in mind was a slightly different flow, where we would be able to push custom node attributes between the header parsing and the generation of the extension code. If we do that, there would be no need to fork the Postgres code: extensions could force the definitions they want to the nodes they want to handle, as long as these do not need to touch the in-core query jumble logic, of course. Perhaps we should give more time and thoughts to the concepts we want to expose at this level of the code for extensions. Hence I would side with not rushing things, and consider our options more carefully for v19 with what we would consider to be better design. -- Michael
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: