2010/11/18 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Jaime Casanova <jaime@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>>> i will start the review of this one... but before that sorry for
>>>>> suggesting this a bit later but about using UNNEST as part of the
>>>>> sintax?
>>>
>>>> Does for-in-array do what unnset does?
>>>
>>> Yes, which begs the question of why bother at all. AFAICS this patch
>>> simply allows you to replace
>>>
>>> for x in select unnest(array_value) loop
>>>
>>> with
>>>
>>> for x in unnest array_value loop
>>>
>>> (plus or minus a parenthesis or so). I do not think we need to add a
>>> bunch of code and create even more syntactic ambiguity (FOR loops are
>>> already on the hairy edge of unparsability) to save people from writing
>>> "select".
>>
>> Pavel's performance argument is imnsho valid. arrays at present are
>> the best way to pass data around functions and any optimizations here
>> are very welcome. Given that, is there any way to mitigate your
>> concerns on the syntax side?
>
> Can we get the performance benefit any other way? I hate to think
> that it will still be slow for people using the already-supported
> syntax.
If you are able to make unnest() outputting 1st row without detoasting
last field.
I think if we have :
#define DatumGetTextPSlice(X,m,n) ((text *) PG_DETOAST_DATUM_SLICE(X,m,n))
but for array, most is done
Pavel, am I correct ?
>
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
--
Cédric Villemain 2ndQuadrant
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
