Re: [HACKERS] empty concatenate

From: Karel Zak - Zakkr <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>
To: sszabo(at)bigpanda(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] empty concatenate
Date: 1999-12-23 17:01:33
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.3.96.991223174850.25235C-100000@ara.zf.jcu.cz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


>
> >
> >Well, but why PgSQL ignore function result if any argument is NULL. IMHO is
> >function's problem what return, and PgSQL must use this result.
> I believe this is a known issue that's being looked at right now.

I not agree with this concept:-).

(My problem is not write query, I know SQL and coalesce()...etc. I want
good understand current implementation.)

! Why is textcat() (and other) function called if result from this
function is ignored, it is bad spending (my CPU is not boredom). See
my 'C' example in my first letter...

Karel

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-12-23 17:35:43 Re: [HACKERS] empty concatenate
Previous Message sszabo 1999-12-23 16:58:13 Re: [HACKERS] empty concatenate