From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Hugo Mercier <hugo(dot)mercier(at)oslandia(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Detection of nested function calls |
Date: | 2013-10-25 12:42:56 |
Message-ID: | CAFj8pRC9vfSq-DE2i0aUuMBrpp_HxoVXBa-eEQXMPdsPYbc=Mg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2013/10/25 Hugo Mercier <hugo(dot)mercier(at)oslandia(dot)com>
> Le 25/10/2013 14:29, Pavel Stehule a écrit :
> > Hello
> >
> >
> > 2013/10/25 Hugo Mercier <hugo(dot)mercier(at)oslandia(dot)com
> > <mailto:hugo(dot)mercier(at)oslandia(dot)com>>.
> >
> > I am quite new to postgresql hacking, so I'm sure there is room for
> > improvements. But, what about this first proposal ?
> >
> >
> > I am not sure, if this solution is enough - what will be done if I store
> > some values in PL/pgSQL variables?
> >
>
> You mean if you store the result of a (nested) function evaluation in a
> PL/pgSQL variable ?
> Then no nesting will be detected by the parser and in this case the user
> function must ensure its result is serialized, since it could be stored
> (in a variable or a table) at any time.
>
ok
I remember, so I though about similar optimization when I worked on SQL/XML
implementation - so same optimization can be used there.
Regards
Pavel
>
> --
> Hugo Mercier
> Oslandia
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-10-25 13:13:20 | Re: CLUSTER FREEZE |
Previous Message | Hugo Mercier | 2013-10-25 12:38:12 | Re: Detection of nested function calls |