On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 10:57:15AM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> IIUC we cannot create two same name functions with the same arguments
> but a different return value type in the first place. It seems to me
> to be an overkill to change such a design.
Agreed to not touch the logictics of LookupFuncName() for the sake of
this thread. I have not checked the SQL specification, but I recall
that there are a few assumptions from the spec embedded in the lookup
logic particularly when it comes to specify a procedure name without
arguments.
> Another idea is to encapsulate copy_to/from_handler by a super class
> like copy_handler. The handler function is called with an argument,
> say copyto, and returns copy_handler encapsulating either
> copy_to/from_handler depending on the argument.
Yep, that's possible as well and can work as a cross-check between the
argument and the NodeTag assigned to the handler structure returned by
the function.
At the end, the final result of the patch should IMO include:
- Documentation about how one can register a custom copy_handler.
- Something in src/test/modules/, minimalistic still useful that can
be used as a template when one wants to implement their own handler.
The documentation should mention about this module.
- No need for SQL functions for all the in-core handlers: let's just
return pointers to them based on the options given.
It would be probably cleaner to split the patch so as the code is
refactored and evaluated with the in-core handlers first, and then
extended with the pluggable facilities and the function lookups.
--
Michael