| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Suggestions for implementing IS DISTINCT FROM? |
| Date: | 2002-06-23 16:01:39 |
| Message-ID: | 8708.1024848099@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> I'm looking at implementing IS DISTINCT FROM, among other things.
> ...
> I was thinking to implement this by simply expanding these rules within
> gram.y to be a tree of comparison tests.
Please, please, do not do that. Make a new expression node tree type,
instead. We've made this mistake before (eg for BETWEEN) and I don't
want to do it again.
Aside from the points you make, a direct expansion approach cannot
reverse-list properly in rules/views, and it will force multiple
evaluations of arguments that should not be multiply evaluated.
Adding a new expression node tree type is not too difficult these days;
see for example Joe Conway's recent NullTest and BooleanTest additions.
I believe the existing expansions of row comparison operators
(makeRowExpr) should be replaced by specialized nodes, too. That would
give us a shot at implementing row '<', '>' comparisons in a
spec-compliant fashion...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-06-23 16:10:26 | Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-06-23 15:19:15 | Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE |