From: | "Stephen J(dot) Butler" <stephen(dot)butler(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: plperl arginfo |
Date: | 2010-10-28 16:55:48 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=mktYXSZ+RUh6uE3ABKjqzanc1HPgq6xNenGHc@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 10/28/2010 11:54 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>>> Alternatively, maybe the feature could be exposed in a way where you
>>> don't actually calculate the values unless requested, ie provide some
>>> sort of inquiry function instead of always precomputing a hash.
>>> +1 .. some like get_function_info()
>
>> Yeah, that looks doable.
>
> BTW, maybe we could have the best of both worlds? Dunno about Perl,
> but in some languages it would be possible to instantiate the hash
> only if it's actually touched. Passing the data as a hash definitely
> seems to fit with the spirit of things otherwise, so as long as it
> didn't cost cycles when not needed, I'd be in favor of that API.
Perl has the tie interface (perldoc perltie) which lets you tie a hash
to an object instance, which implements subs to handle the various
hash operations.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ben | 2010-10-28 16:57:49 | contsel and gist |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-10-28 16:41:22 | Re: revision of todo: NULL for ROW variables |