From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, jgd(at)well(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: bugfix - VIP: variadic function ignore strict flag |
Date: | 2010-02-09 17:44:42 |
Message-ID: | 162867791002090944u164887dcyd1b8540779588c25@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/2/9 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> 2010/2/9 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>> I don't think this is right at all.
>
>> yes, this isn't clear. My arguments for change:
>
>> a) the behave depends on types - "any" is different than others.
>
> So what? "variadic any" is different in a lot of ways.
>
implementation is different, but from users perspective there can not
be differences. I am not sure. From my programmer's view is all ok.
But I believe so from customer view, there can be a surprise - because
NULL value doesn't skip function call.
>> b) optimization over fmgr doesn't work now.
>> b1. some possible const null and strict are ignored
>
> That's a matter of definition.
>
>> b2. array is non const always - so pre eval doesn't work for variadic
>
> You'd need to explain what you mean by that. An ARRAY[] construct is
> subject to const-folding AFAICS.
I am sorry. I was confused. This optimization will work. Only NULL is problem.
Regards
Pavel
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-09 17:56:52 | Re: bugfix - VIP: variadic function ignore strict flag |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-09 17:35:06 | Re: bugfix - VIP: variadic function ignore strict flag |