| From: | Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: SLOPE - Planner optimizations on monotonic expressions. |
| Date: | 2026-07-03 20:21:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAN4CZFPD5Sa7s8S716j7YHDkvsioHQrpEDRdy7H8n0VJvd0W3g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks for the updated version, I didn't find more correctness issues
with the patch in v9.
> Is there a written standard/recommendation for these, maybe
> /*
> * arg0_asc_slope_support
> *
> * Prosupport: f(x, ...) is monotonically increasing in x.
> */
I think most of the function comment's don't mention the function name
at all, but those that do follow this approach with a blank line.
At some places I also see a
/* functionname: some description
*
* more description
*/
pattern.
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION log10(numeric)
RETURNS numeric
LANGUAGE sql
+ SUPPORT arg0_asc_slope_support
IMMUTABLE PARALLEL SAFE STRICT COST 1
RETURN log(10, $1);
Shouldn't these additions, and generally the feature itself / how it
works / what's the contract for functions / ... have proper
documentation as it is user/extension facing?
Another similar question is if the feature should have an enable_
toggle similar to others, enable_slope?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitry Fomin | 2026-07-03 20:22:58 | [PATCH v1 0/7] Wait event timing and tracing instrumentation |
| Previous Message | Álvaro Herrera | 2026-07-03 20:17:31 | Re: Coverage (lcov) failing with inconsistent error in versions 2.x |