Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 2:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The thing that was bothering me most about this is that I don't
>> understand why that's a useful check. ...
> But I don't understand the idea that the concept doesn't make sense.
Sorry: "make sense" was a poorly chosen phrase there. What I was
doubting, and continue to doubt, is that 100% checking of what
you can check without catalog access and 0% checking of the rest
is a behavior that end users will find especially useful.
> I think it is perfectly reasonable to imagine a world in which the
> initial parsing takes care of reporting everything that can be
> determined by static analysis without knowing anything about catalog
> contents, and parse analysis checks all the things that require
> catalog access, and you can run the first set of checks and then
> decide whether to proceed further. I think if I were designing a new
> system from scratch, I'd definitely want to set it up that way, and I
> think moving our existing system in that direction would probably let
> us clean up a variety of warts along the way. Really, the only
> argument I see against it is that getting from where we are to there
> would be a gigantic amount of work for the value we'd derive.
I'm less enthusiatic about this than you are. I think it would likely
produce a slower and less maintainable system. Slower because we'd
need more passes over the query: what parse analysis does today would
have to be done in at least two separate steps. Less maintainable
because knowledge about certain things would end up being more spread
around the system. Taking your example of getting syntax checking to
recognize invalid EXPLAIN keywords: right now there's just one piece
of code that knows what those options are, but this'd require two.
Also, "run the first set of checks and then decide whether to proceed
further" seems like optimizing the system for broken queries over
valid ones, which I don't think is an appropriate goal.
Now, I don't say that there'd be *no* benefit to reorganizing the
system that way. But it wouldn't be an unalloyed win, and so I
share your bottom line that the costs would be out of proportion
to the benefits.
regards, tom lane