Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add notion of a "transform function" that can simplify function
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add notion of a "transform function" that can simplify function |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 14603.1332520057@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add notion of a "transform function" that can simplify function (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote: > However, see my response to Robert: why are we passing the original node > to the transform function at all? It would be more useful and easier to > work with to pass the function's fully-processed argument list, I believe. After a bit of looking around, I realize that the current implementation of transform functions is flat-out wrong, because whenever a transform actually fires, it proceeds to throw away all the work that eval_const_expressions has done on the input, and instead return some lightly-modified version of the original node tree. Thus for example in the regression database: regression=# create function foo(x float8, y int) returns numeric as regression-# 'select ($1 + $2)::numeric' language sql; CREATE FUNCTION regression=# select "numeric"(foo(y := 1, x := f1), -1) from float8_tbl; ERROR: unrecognized node type: 310 since the adjustment of foo's named arguments is thrown away. So this patch is going to need some work. I continue to not see any particular reason why the transform function should need the original node tree. I think what it *should* be getting is the OID of the function (currently, it's impossible for one transform to serve more than one function, which seems like it might be useful); the input collation (currently, transforms are basically unusable for any collation-sensitive function), and the pre-simplified argument list. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: