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!
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Rod Taylor||Date: 2011-11-24 04:45:02|
|Subject: Time bug with small years|
|Previous:||From: Florian Pflug||Date: 2011-11-24 03:49:42|
|Subject: Re: Obstacles to user-defined range canonicalization functions|