| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: generic pseudotype IO functions? |
| Date: | 2014-01-06 15:29:06 |
| Message-ID: | 3616.1389022146@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Does anybody have an opinion about introducing generic pseudotype IO
> functions?
Yes: -1.
> Pseudotype.c/pg_proc.h are slowly growing a number of pretty
> useless/redundant copy&pasted functions... Most for cases that are
> pretty damn unlikely to be hit by users not knowing what they do.
That's hardly the largest cost associated with inventing a new pseudotype.
Nor are there lots of new pseudotypes coming down the pike, anyway.
> What about adding a pseudotype_in/out that just error out with a generic
> message?
This will break some of the function sanity checks in opr_sanity,
I believe. Yeah, we could lobotomize that, but I don't see any benefit.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-06 15:36:32 | Re: generic pseudotype IO functions? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-01-06 15:14:09 | Re: dynamic shared memory and locks |