Re: automatically generating node support functions

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> I do however not think it's a good idea to commit something generating
> something like the existing node functions vs going for a metadata based
> approach at dealing with node functions. That aspect of my patchset is
> independent of the libclang vs script debate.

I think that finishing out and committing this patch is a fine step
on the way to that.  Either that, or you should go ahead and merge
your backend work onto what Peter's done ... but that seems like
it'll be bigger and harder to review.

            regards, tom lane