Hi, On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 02:33:59PM +0800, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 10:21:20AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > I do have sympathy for the idea that extensions would like to define > > their own statement types. I just don't see a practical way to do it > > in our existing parser infrastructure. This patch certainly doesn't > > offer that. > > Allowing extensions to define their own (utility) statement type is just a > matter of allowing ExtensibleNode as top level statement. As far as I can > see the only change required for that is to give those a specific command tag > in CreateCommandTag(), since transformStmt() default to emitting a utility > command. You can then easily intercept such statement in the utility hook and > fetch your custom struct. > > I could do that but I'm assuming that you still wouldn't be satisfied as > custom parser would still be needed, whihc may or may not require to > copy/paste chunks of the core grammar? > > If so, do you have any suggestion for an approach you would accept?
Given the total lack of answer on the various improvements I suggested, I'm assuming that no one is interested in that feature, so I'm marking it as Rejected.
