From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: generic builtin functions |
Date: | 2005-11-10 20:28:55 |
Message-ID: | 4373AD87.2010006@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>What I want to have is some builtin functions that can be used as the
>>input/output/cast/etc functions for each enum type.
>>
>>
>
>The hard part of that is going to be figuring out how to get the
>information to the functions about which enum type they're being invoked
>for. Output functions in particular are handed little except the data
>value itself.
>
>Possibly the internal representation of an enum could be 8 bytes: 4
>bytes for type OID and 4 more for value. No doubt the mysql guys would
>rag on us for using too much disk space :-(. But if you did that then
>the generics would just be anyenum and done.
>
>
Eek! I would be prepared to go to quite a lot of trouble to avoid that.
My idea was to have the functions that need access to the text values
look up fcinfo->flinfo->fn_oid and then use that to look up the type
info. But that would mean we would need pg_proc entries for these
functions for each enum, even if it's the same function underneath,
wouldn't it?
>>I guess we could invent an anyenum pseudotype without actually exposing
>>it via the grammar.
>>
>>
>
>Why do you think you need to hide it?
>
>
>
>
Just desire not to clutter needlessly.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2005-11-10 20:35:38 | 8.0 -> 8.1 dump duplicate key problem? |
Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2005-11-10 20:23:46 | Re: Obtaining a source tree from CVS |