From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Mike Fowler <mike(at)mlfowler(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch |
Date: | 2010-08-07 04:10:05 |
Message-ID: | 31C839ED-545B-4D3F-BC31-04B0C4748114@kineticode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Aug 6, 2010, at 8:49 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> Sorry, not following you here
>
> I would to difference a key and value in notation.
That's exactly what my solution does. The array solution doesn't. Whether it's appropriate to use a custom composite type, however, is an open question.
>> Pavel doesn't understand "no" ;-)
>
> you are don't writing a stored procedures like me - so maybe you are
> doesn't understand a my motivation. :). I have to try it. You are
> rejected almost of all my proposals - named parameters, variadic
> functions, enhancing of RAISE STATEMENT - and now its in core. But it
> was a battle :).
This is how most stuff gets in: you fight Tom to exhaustion. It's a slog, but usually the resulting implementation is better than it would otherwise have been.
> Try to write a XML-RPC support for PostgreSQL, and
> try to thinking on programmer comfort, please. I am sure so our
> support for stored procedures or external procedures are not complete
> - it is limited by BISON possibilities, and because BISON isn't
> extensible parser, I am searching other ways. If I can enhance a
> syntax from external module, I don't talk.
I think that some sort of variadic pairs would be useful for this. But since there is no core "ordered pair" data type, I don't think you're going to get too far.
Best,
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gordon Shannon | 2010-08-07 04:43:11 | Re: Surprising dead_tuple_count from pgstattuple |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-08-07 04:01:03 | Re: GROUPING SETS revisited |