Tom Lane:
The thing that was bothering me most about this is that I don't
understand why that's a useful check. If I meant to type
UPDATE mytab SET mycol = 42;
and instead I type
UPDATEE mytab SET mycol = 42;
your proposed feature would catch that; great. But if I type
UPDATE mytabb SET mycol = 42;
it won't. How does that make sense? I'm not entirely sure where
to draw the line about what a "syntax check" should catch, but this
seems a bit south of what I'd want in a syntax-checking editor.
BTW, if you do feel that a pure grammar check is worthwhile, you
should look at the ecpg preprocessor, which does more or less that
with the SQL portions of its input. ecpg could be a better model
to follow because it doesn't bring all the dependencies of the server
and so is much more likely to appear in a client-side installation.
It's kind of an ugly, unmaintained mess at the moment, sadly.
Would working with ecpg allow to get back a parse tree of the query to
do stuff with that?
This is really what is missing for the ecosystem. A libpqparser for
tools to use: Formatters, linters, query rewriters, simple syntax
checkers... they are all missing access to postgres' own parser.
Best,
Wolfgang