Re: type conversion discussion
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: type conversion discussion |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.21.0005201327350.392-100000@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: type conversion discussion (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
One thing that has gotten lost here is whether there is any market at all for putting in some line of defence against (a tbd degree of) ambiguity at function creation time to reduce the possible problems (implementation and user-side) at call time? What do you think? Tom Lane writes: > glb(A) is the greatest lower bound *within the set of available > functions*. Correct. > Q, the requested call signature, is *not* in that set Correct. > The fact that the set of available functions forms a lattice gives you > no guarantee whatever that glb(A) >= Q, because Q is not constrained > by the lattice property. I know. I don't use the lattice property to deduce that fact hat glb(A)>=Q. I use the lattice property to derive the existance of glb(A). The result glb(A)>=Q comes from 1. Q is a lower bound on A (by definition of A) 2. glb(A) is a lower bound on A (by definition of glb) 3. glb(A)>=Q (by definiton of "greatest") Recall that A was defined as the set of functions >=Q in Q's equivalence class, and was guaranteed to be non-empty by treating the other cases separately. I think it works. :) In all but the most complicated cases this really decays to the obvious behaviour, but on the other hand it scales infinitely. -- Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115 peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: