Commit Graph

5 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
Tom Lane eea9fa9b25 Add defenses against unexpected changes in the NodeTag enum list.
Having different build systems producing different contents of the
NodeTag enum would be catastrophic for extension ABI stability.
But that ordering depends on the order in which gen_node_support.pl
processes its input files.  It seems too fragile to let the Makefiles,
MSVC build scripts, and soon meson build scripts all set this order
independently.  As a klugy but serviceable solution, put a canonical
copy of the file list into gen_node_support.pl itself, and check that
against the files given on the command line.

Also, while it's fine to add and delete node tags during development,
we must not let the assigned NodeTag values change unexpectedly in
stable branches.  Add a cross-check that can be enabled when a branch
is forked off (or later, but that is a time when we're unlikely to
miss doing it).  It just checks that the last auto-assigned number
doesn't change, which is simplistic but will catch the most likely
sorts of mistakes.

From time to time we do need to add a node tag in a stable branch.
To support doing that without changing the branch's auto-assigned
tag numbers, invent pg_node_attr(nodetag_number(VALUE)) which can
be used to give such a node a hand-assigned tag above the last
auto-assigned one.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1249010.1657574337@sss.pgh.pa.us
2022-07-12 11:22:52 -04:00
Tom Lane ca187d7455 Invent nodetag_only attribute for Nodes.
This allows explaining gen_node_support.pl's handling of execnodes.h
and some other input files as being a shortcut for explicit marking
of all their node declarations as pg_node_attr(nodetag_only).
I foresee that someday we might need to be more fine-grained about
that, and this change provides the infrastructure needed to do so.
For now, it just allows removal of the script's klugy special case
for CallContext and InlineCodeBlock.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/75063.1657410615@sss.pgh.pa.us
2022-07-12 10:46:58 -04:00
Tom Lane bf022d337e Rationalize order of input files for gen_node_support.pl.
Per a question from Andres Freund.  While here, also make the
list of nodetag-only files easier to compare to the full list
of input files.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20220710214622.haiektrjzisob6rl@awork3.anarazel.de
2022-07-11 13:38:47 -04:00
Tom Lane 8eccaf6525 Make assorted quality-of-life improvements in gen_node_support.pl.
Fix incorrect reporting of the location of errors (such as bogus
node attributes).  Add header comments to the generated files,
containing copyright notices and reminders that they are generated
files, as we do in other file-generating scripts.  Arrange to not
leave a clutter of temporary files when the script detects an error.

Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/3843645.1657385930@sss.pgh.pa.us
2022-07-09 15:15:05 -04:00
Peter Eisentraut 964d01ae90 Automatically generate node support functions
Add a script to automatically generate the node support functions
(copy, equal, out, and read, as well as the node tags enum) from the
struct definitions.

For each of the four node support files, it creates two include files,
e.g., copyfuncs.funcs.c and copyfuncs.switch.c, to include in the main
file.  All the scaffolding of the main file stays in place.

I have tried to mostly make the coverage of the output match what is
currently there.  For example, one could now do out/read coverage of
utility statement nodes, but I have manually excluded those for now.
The reason is mainly that it's easier to diff the before and after,
and adding a bunch of stuff like this might require a separate
analysis and review.

Subtyping (TidScan -> Scan) is supported.

For the hard cases, you can just write a manual function and exclude
generating one.  For the not so hard cases, there is a way of
annotating struct fields to get special behaviors.  For example,
pg_node_attr(equal_ignore) has the field ignored in equal functions.

(In this patch, I have only ifdef'ed out the code to could be removed,
mainly so that it won't constantly have merge conflicts.  It will be
deleted in a separate patch.  All the code comments that are worth
keeping from those sections have already been moved to the header
files where the structs are defined.)

Reviewed-by: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/c1097590-a6a4-486a-64b1-e1f9cc0533ce%40enterprisedb.com
2022-07-09 08:53:59 +02:00