Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 11.07.22 19:57, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So at this point I'm rather attracted to the idea of reverting to
>> a manually-maintained NodeTag enum. We know how to avoid ABI
>> breakage with that, and it's not exactly the most painful part
>> of adding a new node type.
> One of the nicer features is that you now get to see the numbers
> assigned to the enum tags, like
> T_LockingClause = 91,
> T_XmlSerialize = 92,
> T_PartitionElem = 93,
> so that when you get an error like "unsupported node type: %d", you can
> just look up what it is.
Yeah, I wasn't thrilled about reverting that either. I think the
defenses I installed in eea9fa9b2 should be sufficient to deal
with the risk.
regards, tom lane