On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:45 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 15:48, Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 13:04, Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:52 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 5:14 AM, Alexey Klyukin wrote:
>>>>> You mean packing both a string representation and a reference to a single SV * value?
>>>> Dunno, I'm not a guts guy.
>>> Well, neither me (I haven't used much of the guts api there).
>> Find attached a proof of concept that modifies Alexey's patch to do
>> the above (using the overload example I and others posted).
> [ ... ]
>> Thoughts? Should I polish this a bit more? Or do we like the GUC better?
> So its been over a week with no comments. ISTM there were more people
> against adding yet another GUC. Barring objection ill finish the
> missing parts of the POC patch I posted and submit that.
I've played with that patch just today. I found a problem with it, when I tried to use the array in a string context the backend segfaulted with: "WARNING: Deep recursion on subroutine "main::encode_array_literal" at -e line 74" just before the segfault. I think the problem is in the regexp check in 'encode_array_literal' (it's obviously reversed comparing with the original one), but it still segfaults after I fixed that.
Other than that, the approach looks good to me, I'm for eliminating the GUC setting in favor of it.
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2011-01-26 19:44:36|
|Subject: Re: Extensions support for pg_dump, patch v27|
|Previous:||From: Kevin Grittner||Date: 2011-01-26 19:42:23|
|Subject: Re: SSI patch version 14|