| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "postgres hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: default values for function parameters |
| Date: | 2008-11-24 13:25:13 |
| Message-ID: | 17091.1227533113@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2008/11/24 Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>:
>> Could you explain why you store the default expressions in a new posexpr
>> type rather than in an array of text (compare pg_attrdef.adbin)?
> I would to implement named params - and there expressions, that are
> used as default params, should not be continual. I don't store params
> as array of text because I would to eliminate repeated expression's
> parsing. So I use similar machanism used for rules or views.
Say again? The representation Peter is suggesting *is* what is used
in rules and views. If you've re-invented that wheel, undo it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-11-24 13:28:54 | Re: Minor race-condition problem during database startup |
| Previous Message | A. Kretschmer | 2008-11-24 13:22:30 | Re: blatantly a bug in the documentation |