Re: Unknown-type resolution rules, redux

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unknown-type resolution rules, redux
Date: 2000-12-11 18:50:26
Message-ID: 3A3521F2.7E1D968A@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> It is clear in this algorithm that there is no order dependency: the
> conditions for keeping or discarding a candidate are fixed before we
> start the second pass, and do not vary depending on which other
> candidates were discarded before it.

I won't argue strongly for either solution, but have the deep-seating
(but vague) feeling that a left to right resolution algorithm is easier
to explain, hence to understand, hence to predict, hence to use. An
extra pass will solve the edge case you describe in perhaps a "better"
order.

I do think that the two algorithms under discussion are better than what
we've had in the past. Comments from others?

- Thomas

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lamar Owen 2000-12-11 19:09:35 RPM changes for 7.1.
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2000-12-11 18:46:41 Re: Great Bridge PostgreSQL products and services