| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Domains and arrays and composites, oh my |
| Date: | 2017-09-28 18:58:00 |
| Message-ID: | 044f3a1c-9e20-c08b-8f78-c47aa41d7a0c@2ndQuadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/28/2017 01:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> I do think that treating a function returning a domain-over-composite
>> differently from one returning a base composite is a POLA. We'd be very
>> hard put to explain the reasons for it to an end user.
> Do you have any thoughts about how we ought to resolve that?
>
>
Not offhand. Maybe we need to revisit the decision not to modify the
executor at all. Obviously that would make the patch a good deal more
invasive ;-( One thought I had was that we could invent a new return
type of TYPEFUNC_DOMAIN_COMPOSITE so there would be less danger of a PL
just treating it as an unconstrained base type as it might do if it saw
TYPEFUNC_COMPOSITE.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a strong suspicion that of we leave it like
this now we'll regret it in the future.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-28 18:59:45 | Re: Binary search in fmgr_isbuiltin() is a bottleneck. |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-09-28 18:52:45 | Re: pgbench stuck with 100% cpu usage |