Re: Domains versus arrays versus typmods
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Domains versus arrays versus typmods |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTikAoM8D8TgA9jQ87160=x3q1ECr60B_9Q8yx_qR@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Domains versus arrays versus typmods (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Domains versus arrays versus typmods
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> We've already accepted the cost of doing getBaseTypeAndTypmod() in a >>> whole lot of performance-critical parsing paths, on the off chance that >>> the target datatype might be a domain. It's not apparent to me that >>> array subscripting is so important as to deserve an exemption from that. >>> Especially when not doing so doesn't work. > >> Hmm... so are there no cases where zeroing out the typelem will cost >> us an otherwise-unnecessary syscache lookup? > > My point is that anyplace that is relying on the surface typelem, > without drilling down to see what the base type is, is wrong. > So yeah, those lookups are (will be) necessary. OK. In that case, +1 from me. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: