From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: default parameters for built-in functions (was Re: Documentation Update: Document pg_start_backup checkpoint behavior) |
Date: | 2009-04-07 04:22:38 |
Message-ID: | 162867790904062122x7999fbe8r71060852491e5866@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2009/4/7 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> I wrote:
>> Bruce suggested what seemed like an excellent idea, which is to make
>> this self-documenting using the new default-arguments feature ---
>> it'll look something like this in \df:
>
>> List of functions
>> Schema | Name | Result data type | Argument data types
>> --------+------+------------------+----------------------------------------
>> public | foo | integer | label text, fast boolean DEFAULT false
>
> On poking into this, it's a bit uglier to do than I first thought.
> pg_proc.proargdefaults has to be the text representation of an
> expression tree. This means that to do it directly in pg_proc.h
> would take writing something like
>
> ({CONST :consttype 16 :consttypmod -1 :constlen 1 :constbyval true :constisnull false :location -1 :constvalue 1 [ 0 0 0 0 ]})
>
> Ugly as that is, it gets worse fast: the constvalue representation is
> machine-dependent, both as to width and endianness. And maintaining
> such things in the face of expression tree changes would be no fun
> either.
>
> So I think that's out. The only alternative that comes to mind is
> to have initdb issue an additional SQL command to establish the default
> after the bootstrap phase; that is, something like
>
> CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION
> pg_start_backup(label text, fast boolean DEFAULT false)
> RETURNS text LANGUAGE internal STRICT AS 'start_backup';
>
> in system_views.sql or some such place.
>
> Or we could just not bother with using a default here (ie, go back to
> declaring two pg_proc entries). It's not buying us all that much.
>
> Comments?
>
I like this idea - it should help for some spec types too
regards
Pavel
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Dunlop | 2009-04-07 04:36:17 | Re: a few crazy ideas about hash joins |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-04-07 02:38:07 | Re: unchecked out of memory in postmaster.c |