From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] parse_coerce question |
Date: | 1999-08-05 14:21:04 |
Message-ID: | 4067.933862864@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> writes:
>>>> It seems to me that parse_coerce ought to do parse-time coercion if
>>>> the input tree is a constant of either UNKNOWNOID, INT4OID, or FLOAT8OID
>>>> type, and only fall back to inserting a function call if it's unable
>>>> to do the coercion. Am I missing anything?
>> You are right. The textin/out trick is an old one, and one we only did
>> because we _had_ to make some conversion at that point. No problem
>> making it more general.
> Sure, as long as we don't use textin/out to do it. It's an old trick
> with more limitations than benefits. The Right Way to approach it is
> to use type-specific conversion functions, so that real conversions
> can take place.
Right --- the revision I committed last night looks up the
type-conversion function the same as before, but then applies it
immediately if the input is a constant.
> It should be easy to pre-evaluate that function,
> which btw should happen anyway. afaik it does, but not until after the
> optimizer has had its look at the query,
I'm not aware of any post-optimizer place where that might happen.
In any case, the optimizer would be much happier if constant-expression
reduction happened before it rather than after.
> For the index selection problem, I was thinking to move some of the
> parse_coerce techniques to that part of the code, so that functions on
> constants are allowed to be considered as candidate constants in a
> query.
I still think we want a generalized constant-expression folder, applied
after rule rewrite and before the optimizer. This particular case was
just something I thought the parser should handle, since it was already
handling closely related cases...
> In any case, you'll need to make sure that you only promote types one
> direction, so that (for example)
> select intcol from table where intcol < 33.5;
> gets evaluated correctly.
That is not parse_coerce()'s problem --- it just does what it's told.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 1999-08-05 14:39:29 | Re: [HACKERS] parse_coerce question |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-08-05 14:09:37 | Re: [HACKERS] INTERSECT/EXCEPT and duplicates? |