Re: [HACKERS] Re: type coersion (was OR clause status)
От | Thomas G. Lockhart |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Re: type coersion (was OR clause status) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 35CE22FF.4B30E754@alumni.caltech.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Re: type coersion (was OR clause status) (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Re: type coersion (was OR clause status)
Re: [HACKERS] Re: type coersion (was OR clause status) Re: [HACKERS] Re: type coersion (was OR clause status) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > Yes the handling does matter *in general*... > This is all a good point. I wonder whether it wouldn't help to make > the parser's initial assignment of types to constants depend on how > big the constants are. I agree that there is something to fix, including both of the indexing example cases you are following. I've been seeing this as an opportunity to fix sub-optimal utilization of indices, and my recent changes to enhance the type conversion capabilities in the parser just put the index handling in a harsher light. If we come near release time, and no one has been able to penetrate the index handling (to fix cases as simple as "where x = 1 + 1" which have never worked) the we could fairly easily go back into the parser and brute-force some non-general workarounds to get the few "worse than before" cases hacked around. If we _can_ get the index handling to work more generally, then we have substantially enhanced the overall capabilities of Postgres. So far, I haven't seen cases where the parser has tried to do "the wrong thing", only cases where "the right thing" causes the index handling to miss the boat... - Tom
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: