Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH]

From: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: arrays as pl/perl input arguments [PATCH]
Date: 2011-01-26 20:08:03
Message-ID: AANLkTinwBMf9gsiKHTXrNxQy7Q9vh+jOkpw3=EQKHm6y@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:44, Alexey Klyukin <alexk(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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),

Yeah, I noticed that after I sent it out :(.

> but it still segfaults after I fixed that.

I seem to recall fixing this post email as well... Can you provide the
function that broke so I can double check? (Or was it part of the
regression test?)

Thanks for taking the time to play with it.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-01-26 20:08:51
Subject: Re: ALTER TYPE 3: add facility to identify further no-work cases
Previous:From: Richard BroersmaDate: 2011-01-26 20:05:39
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Seeking Mentors for Funded Reviewers

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group