Craig Ringer <craig.ringer@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> So perhaps:
> "The same query string may be passed to multiple invocations of
> ProcessUtility if a utility statement invokes subcommands (e.g. ALTER
> TABLE), in which case context will be set to
> PROCESS_UTILITY_SUBCOMMAND, or if the user supplied a query string
> containing multiple semicolon-separated statements in a single
> protocol message. It is also possible for the query text to contain
> other non-utility-statement text like comments, empty statements, and
> plannable statements that don't pass through ProcessUtility. Hooks
> that use the queryString should use pstmt->stmt_location and
> pstmt->stmt_len to extract the text for the statement of interest and
> should pay attention to the context to avoid repeatedly handling the
> same query string in subcommands."
Meh. I really don't think that a comment about the query string is
the place to get into promises that are unrelated to the string, and
that ProcessUtility is in no position to enforce anyway. How about
we just say this:
"The same queryString may be passed to multiple invocations of
ProcessUtility when processing a query string containing multiple
semicolon-separated statements; one should use pstmt->stmt_location and
pstmt->stmt_len to identify the substring containing the current
statement. Keep in mind also that some utility statements (e.g.,
CREATE SCHEMA) will recurse to ProcessUtility to process sub-statements,
often passing down the same queryString, stmt_location, and stmt_len
that were given for the whole statement."
regards, tom lane