Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:55:52AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why exactly was this thought to be a good idea:
>> 
>>> * A NULL original expression disables use of transform functions while
>>> * retaining all other behaviors.

> I did it that way because it looked wrong to pass the same CoerceViaIO node to
> transforms of both the input and output functions.  Thinking about it again
> now, doing so imposes no fundamental problems.  Feel welcome to change it.

Oh, I see your point --- it's not obvious whether the current transform
is meant for the input or the output function.  Which is a very good
point.  In principle the transform function could figure out which end
of that it must be, but it would be ugly.

However, see my response to Robert: why are we passing the original node
to the transform function at all?  It would be more useful and easier to
work with to pass the function's fully-processed argument list, I believe.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add notion of a "transform function" thatcan simplify function at 2012-03-23 15:31:47 from Noah Misch

Responses

• Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add notion of a "transform function" that can simplify function at 2012-03-23 16:27:37 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Alvaro Herrera	Date: 2012-03-23 15:45:30
	Subject: Re: Finer Extension dependencies
Previous:	From: Peter Geoghegan	Date: 2012-03-23 15:35:25
	Subject: Re: Uppercase tab completion keywords in psql?

pgsql-committers by date

Next:	From: Noah Misch	Date: 2012-03-23 16:09:56
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add notion of a "transform function" thatcan simplify function
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2012-03-23 15:31:54
	Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add notion of a "transform function" that can simplify function