Re: Obstacles to user-defined range canonicalization functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David E. Wheeler
Subject Re: Obstacles to user-defined range canonicalization functions
Date
Msg-id DA9C5E17-9919-41D0-9C96-07700EBA16DE@justatheory.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Obstacles to user-defined range canonicalization functions  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Nov 23, 2011, at 10:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:

> Now you could argue that for performance reasons everybody should write
> their canonicalization functions in C anyway, but I'm not sure I buy
> that --- at the very least, it'd be nice to write the functions in
> something higher-level while prototyping.

I would apply this argument to every single part of the system that requires code that extends the database to be
writtenin C, including: 

* I/O functions (for custom data types)
* tsearch parsers
* use of RECORD arguments

And probably many others. There are a *lot* of problems I’d love to be able to solve with prototypes written in PLs
otherthan C, and in small databases (there are a lot of them out there), they may remain the production solutions. 

So I buy the argument in the case of creating range canonicalization functions, too, of course!

Best,

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Florian Pflug
Date:
Subject: Re: Obstacles to user-defined range canonicalization functions
Next
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: logging in high performance systems.