Re: Faster NUMERIC implementation

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 09:49:30AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> With suitable #define hacking you could perhaps take care of the code's
> dependencies on palloc/pfree ... but elog is harder, and I don't see any
> realistic way to handle the backend's function-call conventions as
> opposed to conventions that would make sense as a library API.
>
> I don't want to clutter the code by having to support two sets of error
> conventions and two APIs. If you can figure a way around that, great...

How about some wrapper frunctions in the backend that just call their
helper functions in the lib? Let's be honest maintaining all this code
twice will be very hard to do too. I'd prefer looking for a way to
integrate things. I have no problem with special backend syntax for some
functions. It's not that the API has to be identical. We could have an
open API and a backend API calling the same functions.

Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael(at)Fam-Meskes(dot)De
ICQ: 179140304
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!