Re: Extending outfuncs support to utility statements

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2022-07-10 19:12:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> They're not so much "cold" as "dead", so I don't see the point
>> of having them at all.  If we ever start allowing utility commands
>> (besides NOTIFY) in stored rules, we'd need readfuncs support then
>> ... but at least in the short run I don't see that happening.

> It would allow us to test utility outfuncs as part of the
> WRITE_READ_PARSE_PLAN_TREES check. Not that that's worth very much.

Especially now that those are all auto-generated anyway.

> I guess it could be a minor help in making a few more utility commands benefit
> from paralellism?

Again, once we have an actual use-case, enabling that code will be
fine by me.  But we don't yet.

            regards, tom lane