| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting |
| Date: | 2020-12-07 22:17:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20201207221708.yqqtlzfwyoppnl6p@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-12-07 16:32:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > I think it'd be a better to rely on the backend's definition of
> > ExecEvalBoolSubroutine etc. For the functions implementing expression
> > steps I've found that far easier to work with over time (because you can
> > get LLVM to issue type mismatch errors when the signature changes,
> > instead of seeing compile failures).
>
> I'm a little unclear on what you mean here? There wasn't such a
> thing as ExecEvalBoolSubroutine until I added it in this patch.
Basically that I suggest doing what I did in the prototype patch I
attached, mirroring what it did with TypeExecEvalSubroutine for the new
ExecEvalBoolSubroutine case.
> What did you think of the idea of merging EEOP_SBSREF_OLD / ASSIGN / FETCH
> into a single step type distinguished only by the callback function?
I don't have a strong opinion on this. I guess find it a bit easier to
understand the generated "program" if the opcodes are distinct (I've a
pending patch printing the opcode sequence). Especially as the payload
is just function pointers.
So I think I'd just merge the *implementation* of the steps, but leave
the different opcodes around?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-12-07 22:25:41 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-12-07 21:58:28 | Re: Commitfest statistics |