Re: What happened to the is_<type> family of functions proposal?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Colin 't Hart" <colinthart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: What happened to the is_<type> family of functions proposal?
Date: 2010-09-21 15:49:56
Message-ID: 3790.1285084196@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I think it would be useful to have a way of testing whether a cast to
> a given type will succeed. The biggest problem with the
> exception-catching method is not that it requires writing a function
> (which, IMHO, is no big deal) but that exception handling is pretty
> slow and inefficient. You end up doing things like... write a regexp
> to see whether the data is in approximately the right format and then
> if it is try the cast inside an exception block. Yuck.

The problem here is that putting the exception handling in C doesn't
make things any better: it's still slow and inefficient. And in the
general case the only way to be sure that a string will be accepted by
the input function is to try it.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-09-21 15:56:51 Re: What happened to the is_<type> family of functions proposal?
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2010-09-21 15:48:48 Re: Do we need a ShmList implementation?