From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Missing array support |
Date: | 2003-06-30 02:56:16 |
Message-ID: | 3EFFA6D0.1000505@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Joe Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>>> Included in the patch, I changed SQL language functions so that they
>>> could be declared with and use polymorphic types.
>>
>> I'm not convinced that will work ... in particular, does the parsetree
>> get fixed correctly when a SQL function is inlined?
>
> So I'd propose that we put another check in inline_function(), and
> reject attempts to inline functions with polymorphic arguments. The
> other bases are already covered and we already have the proc tuple
> available in inline_function(). Sound OK?
>
Here's another copy of the polymorphic (aggregates + SQL functions)
patch. This one includes the proposed chage above to ensure polymorphic
SQL functions do not get inlined. They can be successfully simplified by
evaluate_function() when appropriate, as I showed in the last post.
Otherwise, it should be the same. Still compiles clean and passes all
regression tests.
Please apply.
Thanks,
Joe
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
array-polyagg.07.patch | text/plain | 36.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-30 02:58:59 | Re: [HACKERS] Missing array support |
Previous Message | Kevin Jacobs | 2003-06-30 01:54:39 | Re: [HACKERS] PlPython |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-30 02:58:59 | Re: [HACKERS] Missing array support |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-06-30 01:01:53 | Re: [HACKERS] Missing array support |