Re: Identifying no-op length coercions

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Identifying no-op length coercions
Дата
Msg-id 18282.1306177300@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Identifying no-op length coercions  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Ответы Re: Identifying no-op length coercions
Re: Identifying no-op length coercions
Список pgsql-hackers
Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> Good deal.  Given that conclusion, the other policy decision I anticipate
> affecting this particular patch is the choice of syntax.  Presumably, it will be
> a new common_func_opt_item.  When I last looked at the keywords list and tried
> to come up with something, these were the best I could do:

>   CREATE FUNCTION ... PARSER MAPPING helperfunc(args)
>   CREATE FUNCTION ... PLANS CONVERSION helperfunc(args)

We could go with your previous idea of not bothering to expose this in
the SQL syntax.  Given that the helper function is going to have a
signature along the lines of "(internal, internal) -> internal", it's
going to be difficult for anyone to use it for non-builtin functions
anyhow.

But if you really don't like that, what about
TRANSFORM helperfunctionname

Although TRANSFORM isn't currently a keyword for us, it is a
non-reserved keyword in SQL:2008, and it seems possible that we might
someday think about implementing the associated features.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Identifying no-op length coercions
Следующее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: crash-safe visibility map, take five