From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays |
Date: | 2019-02-25 21:41:48 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WznX=dooG6erxoa9LKh0dqVRCCYxK0N-nucqD1sth=UmOA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 1:31 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > Andres said that he doesn't like the pg_list.h API. It's not pretty,
> > but is it really that bad?
>
> Yes. The function names alone confound anybody new to postgres, we tend
> to forget that after a few years. A lot of the function return types are
> basically unpredictable without reading the code, the number of builtin
> types is pretty restrictive, and there's no typesafety around the choice
> of actually stored.
But a lot of those restrictions are a consequence of needing what
amount to support functions in places as distant from pg_list.h as
pg_stat_statements.c, or the parser, or outfuncs.c. I'm not saying
that we couldn't do better here, but the design is constrained by
this. If you add a support for a new datatype, where does that leave
stored rules? Seems ticklish to me, at the very least.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-02-25 21:43:24 | Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2019-02-25 21:40:34 | Re: Remove Deprecated Exclusive Backup Mode |