From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add transforms feature |
Date: | 2015-03-17 01:51:06 |
Message-ID: | 5507888A.1010503@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/12/15 8:12 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> 1. fix missing semicolon pg_proc.h
>
> Oid protrftypes[1]; /* types for which to apply
> transforms */
Darn, I thought I had fixed that.
> 2. strange load lib by in sql scripts:
>
> DO '' LANGUAGE plperl;
> SELECT NULL::hstore;
>
> use load plperl; load hstore; instead
OK
> 3. missing documentation for new contrib modules,
OK
> 4. pg_dump - wrong comment
>
> +<-----><------>/*
> +<-----><------> * protrftypes was added at v9.4
> +<-----><------> */
OK
> 4. Why guc-use-transforms? Is there some possible negative side effect
> of transformations, so we have to disable it? If somebody don't would to
> use some transformations, then he should not to install some specific
> transformation.
Well, there was extensive discussion last time around where people
disagreed with that assertion.
> 5. I don't understand to motivation for introduction of protrftypes in
> pg_proc and TRANSFORM clause for CREATE FUNCTION - it is not clean from
> documentation, and examples in contribs works without it. Is it this
> functionality really necessary? Missing tests, missing examples.
Again, this came out from the last round of discussion that people
wanted to select which transforms to use and that the function needs to
remember that choice, so it doesn't depend on whether a transform
happens to be installed or not. Also, it's in the SQL standard that way
(by analogy).
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-03-17 03:01:28 | Re: [HACKERS] get_object_address support for additional object types |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2015-03-17 01:09:19 | Re: ranlib bleating about dirmod.o being empty |