Hi,
On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:45 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 15:48, Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 13:04, Alexey Klyukin <alexk@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:52 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 5:14 AM, Alexey Klyukin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You mean packing both a string representation and a reference to a single SV * value?
>>>>
>>>> Dunno, I'm not a guts guy.
>>>
>>> Well, neither me (I haven't used much of the guts api there).
>>
>> Find attached a proof of concept that modifies Alexey's patch to do
>> the above (using the overload example I and others posted).
> [ ... ]
>> Thoughts? Should I polish this a bit more? Or do we like the GUC better?
>
> So its been over a week with no comments. ISTM there were more people
> against adding yet another GUC. Barring objection ill finish the
> missing parts of the POC patch I posted and submit that.
I've played with that patch just today. I found a problem with it, when I tried to use the array in a string context
thebackend segfaulted with: "WARNING: Deep recursion on subroutine "main::encode_array_literal" at -e line 74" just
beforethe segfault. I think the problem is in the regexp check in 'encode_array_literal' (it's obviously reversed
comparingwith the original one), but it still segfaults after I fixed that.
Other than that, the approach looks good to me, I'm for eliminating the GUC setting in favor of it.
/A
--
Alexey Klyukin
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
