Re: c language functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Rodrigo Barboza
Subject Re: c language functions
Date
Msg-id CANs8QJb_dRmwmWFSmKwx=+J8iqs4rRHM5_S18AvpitaR20PzSQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: c language functions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: c language functions
List pgsql-hackers
Well, I was checking inside my function the type of the second argument and switching between the allowed types.
This way kind of does the same thing of many functions, doesn't it?


On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Rodrigo Barboza <rodrigombufrj@gmail.com> writes:
> Why not useful?
> If I don't make it receive anyelement, I will have to create an add
> function for each type.

If you make it anyelement, then you're contracting to be able to add
any datatype whatsoever to a my_uint.  This is nonsensical.

You'd be better off declaring several specific addition functions,
one for each other type.  This will be an order of magnitude easier
to write, and probably run an order of magnitude faster too, because
just checking to see what type you got would already be significantly
more expensive than adding a couple of integers ought to be.

Look at the built-in types and functions for precedent.  There are
indeed separate functions for int2 + int2, int2 + int4, int4 + int2,
int4 + int4, etc etc.  If we were starting from scratch, we might reduce
that to just int4 + int4 and rely on the implicit coercion from int2 to
int4 to handle the other cases; but there's no way we'd put in run-time
type determination.

                        regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: regression test failed when enabling checksum
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL)