Re: [HACKERS] Interesting behaviour !

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Constantin Teodorescu <teo(at)flex(dot)ro>, Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)trust(dot)ee>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Interesting behaviour !
Date: 1999-07-14 17:28:51
Message-ID: 378CC8D3.A9CDD470@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> This might be a relatively simple bug to fix after all,
> but it needs more time to find exactly where things are going wrong...
> and I have to get some Real Work done...

Don't let me stop anyone from looking at this, but fyi this is the one
area I didn't yet touch for the "transparent type coersion" work I did
for v6.4 and which is still ongoing of course.

istm that wherever index use is evaluated one could allow
pre-evaluated functions on constants, rather than just strict
constants as is the case now. There is a precedent for pre-evaluation
of elements of the query tree.

If function calls are allowed, then we can try coercing constants
using these existing coersion functions, at least when the target
column is a "superset type" of the constant. You still run into
trouble for cases like

select intcol from table1 where intcol < 2.5;

- Thomas

--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Morris, Sam@EDD 1999-07-14 17:41:24 Authentication - To do
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 1999-07-14 17:17:59 Re: Arrays versus 'type constant' syntax