From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Unknown-type resolution rules, redux |
Date: | 2000-12-11 18:50:26 |
Message-ID: | 3A3521F2.7E1D968A@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> It is clear in this algorithm that there is no order dependency: the
> conditions for keeping or discarding a candidate are fixed before we
> start the second pass, and do not vary depending on which other
> candidates were discarded before it.
I won't argue strongly for either solution, but have the deep-seating
(but vague) feeling that a left to right resolution algorithm is easier
to explain, hence to understand, hence to predict, hence to use. An
extra pass will solve the edge case you describe in perhaps a "better"
order.
I do think that the two algorithms under discussion are better than what
we've had in the past. Comments from others?
- Thomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2000-12-11 19:09:35 | RPM changes for 7.1. |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-12-11 18:46:41 | Re: Great Bridge PostgreSQL products and services |