Re: Inlining functions with "expensive" parameters

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Paul Ramsey <pramsey(at)cleverelephant(dot)ca>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Inlining functions with "expensive" parameters
Date: 2017-11-21 16:44:16
Message-ID: 20171121164416.m7wwvvg3g5demef4@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2017-11-21 10:16:58 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm also wondering about folding CaseTestExpr and CoerceToDomainValue
> into the same mechanism. It's not very hard to see those cases as
> being the same as a function-based lambda.

Yea, that'd be good. The current mechanisms is uh, historically grown.

- Andres

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-11-21 16:49:11 Re: Does XMLSERIALIZE output xmlattributes in a stable order?
Previous Message Andres Freund 2017-11-21 16:42:47 Re: Inlining functions with "expensive" parameters