From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Reducing opr_sanity test's runtime under CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS |
Date: | 2021-05-10 05:14:13 |
Message-ID: | 20210510051413.xbktusae7ttc4jlh@nol |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, May 09, 2021 at 01:01:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Looking at the patch, explicitly_binary_coercible wasn't used since
> > e9f42d529f990f94e1b7bdcec4a1111465c85326 (and was renamed there too). Just to
> > be sure, is it ok to remove it, as it was described as
>
> >> --- We don't currently use this for any tests in this file, but it is a
> >> --- reasonable alternative definition for some scenarios.
>
> > It would still be in the git history in needed, so I'm not objecting.
>
> It's my own comment, so it doesn't scare me particularly ;-).
Yes, I saw that when digging in git history :)
> I think that
>
> (a) it's unlikely we'll ever again need that old physically-coercible
> check. That was a hangover from Berkeley-era type cheats, and I think
> our standards are higher now. If somebody submits a patch that would
> depend on such a cheat, I think our response would be "fix the patch",
> not "it's okay to weaken the type-matching checks".
>
> (b) if we did need it, we'd probably want an implementation like this
> one (ie invoke some C code), both for speed and because it's hard to
> make a plpgsql function's behavior match the C code's exactly.
I quite agree with both. As I said I just wanted to mention it for extra
safety.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Smith | 2021-05-10 05:21:02 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-05-10 04:11:08 | Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach) |