Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: > Huh, isn't it simpler to just pass the triggers the parse tree *after* > parse analysis? I don't understand what you're doing here.
I didn't realize that the parse analysis is in fact done from within standard_ProcessUtility() directly, which means your suggestion is indeed workable. Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes: > It's not the costs I'm worried about so much as the side effects --- Ok, so I'm now calling the command trigger procedures once the parse analysis is done, and guess what, I'm back to the same problem as before: https://github.com/dimitri/postgres/commit/4bfab6344a554c09f7322e861f9d09468f641bd9 CREATE TABLE public."ab_foo-bar" ( id serial NOT NULL, foo integer default 1, PRIMARY KEY(id) ); NOTICE: CREATE TABLE will create implicit sequence "ab_foo-bar_id_seq" for serial column "ab_foo-bar.id" NOTICE: snitch: CREATE SEQUENCE ERROR: unrecognized node type: 904 I'm not sure about the next step, and I'm quite sure I need to stop here for tonight. Any advice welcome, I'll be working on that again as soon as tomorrow. Regards, -- Dimitri Fontaine http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
