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?
