Re: Allowing extensions to supply operator-/function-specific info - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Allowing extensions to supply operator-/function-specific info
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoYkLjVcbZZ8PYyaCTMYZJCQ8eiod8MSRMDaczjBw=a0bQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Allowing extensions to supply operator-/function-specific info  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Allowing extensions to supply operator-/function-specific info  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 12:35 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Attached is an 0004 that makes a stab at providing some intelligence
> for unnest() and the integer cases of generate_series().

That looks awesome.

I'm somewhat dubious about whole API.  It's basically -- if you have a
problem and a PhD in PostgreSQL-ology, you can write some C code to
fix it.  On the other hand, the status quo is that you may as well
just forget about fixing it, which is clearly even worse.  And I don't
really know how to do better.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jesper Pedersen
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?