Re: Unknown-type resolution rules, redux - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Lockhart
Subject Re: Unknown-type resolution rules, redux
Date
Msg-id 3A3521F2.7E1D968A@alumni.caltech.edu
Whole thread Raw
In response to Unknown-type resolution rules, redux  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> It is clear in this algorithm that there is no order dependency: the
> conditions for keeping or discarding a candidate are fixed before we
> start the second pass, and do not vary depending on which other
> candidates were discarded before it.

I won't argue strongly for either solution, but have the deep-seating
(but vague) feeling that a left to right resolution algorithm is easier
to explain, hence to understand, hence to predict, hence to use. An
extra pass will solve the edge case you describe in perhaps a "better"
order.

I do think that the two algorithms under discussion are better than what
we've had in the past. Comments from others?
                   - Thomas


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Is VACUUM still crash-safe?
Next
From: Alfred Perlstein
Date:
Subject: (one more time) Patches with vacuum fixes available.