Re: Allowing extensions to supply operator-/function-specific info

> On Mar 4, 2019, at 2:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca> writes:
>> Gotcha, done and now have an implementation that passes all our regression tests.
>
> Very cool! So the next step, I guess, is to address your original problem
> by cranking up the cost estimates for these functions --- have you tried
> that yet? In principle you should be able to do that and not have any
> bad planning side-effects, but this is all pretty new territory so maybe
> some problems remain to be ironed out.
>
> BTW, if you'd like me to review the code you added for this, I'd be happy
> to do so. I've never looked at PostGIS' innards, but probably I can make
> sense of the code for this despite that.

I would be ecstatic for a review, I’m sure I’ve left a million loose threads dangling.

P.

https://github.com/pramsey/postgis/blob/svn-trunk-supportfn/postgis/gserialized_supportfn.c#L191 <https://github.com/pramsey/postgis/blob/svn-trunk-supportfn/postgis/gserialized_supportfn.c#L191>

https://github.com/pramsey/postgis/blob/svn-trunk-supportfn/postgis/postgis.sql.in#L4290 <https://github.com/pramsey/postgis/blob/svn-trunk-supportfn/postgis/postgis.sql.in#L4290>