> > 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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers