From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | reuven(at)lerner(dot)co(dot)il, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Many Pl/PgSQL parameters -> AllocSetAlloc(128)? |
Date: | 2003-06-25 18:35:20 |
Message-ID: | 7789.1056566120@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> The above didn't work, but if I understand correctly what that function
> is intended to do, it seemed very broken. Basically this code:
> nanswers = 1;
> for (i = 0; i < nargs; i++)
> {
> nanswers *= (arginh[i].nsupers + 2);
> cur[i] = 0;
> }
> for 24 arguments means 2^24 answers, even when there are no superclasses.
Right, but it should be (arginh[i].nsupers + 1) at each position. It's
not quite as broken as you think.
What the code is trying to do is consider superclasses as substitute
argument types at each position where there is a complex type. But it
should consider that in combination with both original argument types
and superclasses at each other position. Your proposed patch is like
asserting that *all* argument positions must be promoted if any are.
The part I think we want to get rid of is the insertion of zero as an
additional considered possibility at each position. That's certainly
not appropriate any longer for scalar types, and I don't think it is
appropriate for complex types either, in view of the fact that we got
rid of OPAQUE as a wildcard type in 7.3.
I'll put in a patch this afternoon. And try to improve the comments
while I'm at it ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | AgentM | 2003-06-25 18:48:49 | Re: [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration |
Previous Message | Reuben D. Budiardja | 2003-06-25 18:06:57 | INSERT WHERE NOT EXISTS |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | AgentM | 2003-06-25 18:48:49 | Re: [GENERAL] Physical Database Configuration |
Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2003-06-25 17:56:13 | Re: still getting ecpg compile failures |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-25 20:11:30 | Re: Many Pl/PgSQL parameters -> AllocSetAlloc(128)? |
Previous Message | Nabil Sayegh | 2003-06-25 18:24:59 | Re: autotimestamping |