Re: WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Doug Doole <ddoole(at)salesforce(dot)com>
Subject: Re: WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4
Date: 2017-03-10 13:51:25
Message-ID: 1744e9b4-53a9-1204-eb05-e7e18eb7c0b9@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 3/7/17 19:14, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Why shouldn't the function itself also depend on the components of its
>> return type?
> Because that'd make it impossible to change the return type components -
> if the return type is baked into the view that's necessary, but for a
> "freestanding function" it's not. If you e.g. have a function that just
> returns a table's rows, it'd certainly be annoying if that'd prevent you
> from dropping columns.

I think functions breaking when the return type is fiddled with is
actually a not-uncommon problem in practice. It would be nice if that
could be addressed. Not necessarily in this patch, but I would like to
keep the options open. Comments from others would be welcome on this.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniel Verite 2017-03-10 13:52:05 Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2017-03-10 13:34:01 Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask