Re: Detection of nested function calls

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The idea I'm thinking about at the moment is that toast tokens of this
>> sort might each contain a function pointer to the required flattening
>> function.

> This might be OK, but it bloats the in-memory representation. For
> small data types like numeric that might well be significant.

Meh. If you don't include a function pointer you will still need the OID
of the datatype or the decompression function, so it's not like omitting
it is free. In any case, the design target here is for data values that
are going to be quite large, so an extra 4 bytes or whatever in the
reference object doesn't really seem to me to be something to stress over.

regards, tom lane