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

Re: Obstacles to user-defined range canonicalization functions

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Obstacles to user-defined range canonicalization functions
Date: 2011-11-24 04:07:18
Message-ID: DA9C5E17-9919-41D0-9C96-07700EBA16DE@justatheory.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> Now you could argue that for performance reasons everybody should write
> their canonicalization functions in C anyway, but I'm not sure I buy
> that --- at the very least, it'd be nice to write the functions in
> something higher-level while prototyping.

I would apply this argument to every single part of the system that requires code that extends the database to be written in C, including:

* I/O functions (for custom data types)
* tsearch parsers
* use of RECORD arguments

And probably many others. There are a *lot* of problems I’d love to be able to solve with prototypes written in PLs other than C, and in small databases (there are a lot of them out there), they may remain the production solutions.

So I buy the argument in the case of creating range canonicalization functions, too, of course!

Best,

David


In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Rod TaylorDate: 2011-11-24 04:45:02
Subject: Time bug with small years
Previous:From: Florian PflugDate: 2011-11-24 03:49:42
Subject: Re: Obstacles to user-defined range canonicalization functions

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