Re: Allowing extensions to supply operator-/function-specific info

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Allowing extensions to supply operator-/function-specific info
Date: 2019-01-28 16:47:39
Message-ID: CA+TgmoYkLjVcbZZ8PYyaCTMYZJCQ8eiod8MSRMDaczjBw=a0bQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 12:35 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Attached is an 0004 that makes a stab at providing some intelligence
> for unnest() and the integer cases of generate_series().

That looks awesome.

I'm somewhat dubious about whole API. It's basically -- if you have a
problem and a PhD in PostgreSQL-ology, you can write some C code to
fix it. On the other hand, the status quo is that you may as well
just forget about fixing it, which is clearly even worse. And I don't
really know how to do better.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2019-01-28 16:49:18 Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?
Previous Message Jesper Pedersen 2019-01-28 16:47:37 Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb