From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Non-decimal integer literals |
Date: | 2022-11-24 09:13:39 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvoqToAG_At7gBZNSD1PaadRfS40gP3JraGBY76As-t5Ow@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 24 Nov 2022 at 21:35, Peter Eisentraut
<peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> My code follows the style used for parsing the decimal integers.
> Keeping that consistent is valuable I think. I think the proposed
> change makes the code significantly harder to understand. Also, what
> you are suggesting here would amount to an attempt to make parsing
> hexadecimal integers even faster than parsing decimal integers. Is that
> useful?
Isn't it being faster one of the major use cases for this feature? I
remember many years ago and several jobs ago when working with SQL
Server being able to speed up importing data using hexadecimal
DATETIMEs. I can't think why else you might want to represent a
DATETIME as a hexstring, so I assumed this was a large part of the use
case for INTs in PostgreSQL. Are you telling me that better
performance is not something anyone will want out of this feature?
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais | 2022-11-24 09:22:06 | Re: Transparent column encryption |
Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-11-24 09:07:24 | Re: Allow file inclusion in pg_hba and pg_ident files |