> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 08:23:52AM GMT, Andy Fan wrote:
>
> >> > I imagined you'd the patch should create a SupportRequestSimplify
> >> > support function for jsonb_numeric() that checks if the input
> >> > expression is an OpExpr with funcid of jsonb_object_field(). All you
> >> > do then is ditch the cast and change the OpExpr to call a new function
> >> > named jsonb_object_field_numeric() which returns the val.numeric
> >> > directly. Likely the same support function could handle jsonb casts
> >> > to other types too, in which case you'd just call some other function,
> >> > e.g jsonb_object_field_timestamp() or jsonb_object_field_boolean().
> >>
> >> Basically yes. The reason complexity comes when we many operators we
> >> want to optimize AND my patch I want to reduce the number of function
> >> created.
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Within the start / finish function, we need to create *7* functions.
> >
> > Any particular reason you want to keep number of functions minimal? Is
> > it just to make the patch smaller? I might be missing something without
> > looking at the implementation in details, but the difference between 10
> > and 7 functions doesn't seem to be significant.
>
> Another reason is for reducing code duplication, writting too many
> similar function looks not good to me. Chapman expressed this idea
> first at [1]. Search "it would make me happy to further reduce some
> of the code" in the message.
>
> Acutally this doesn't make the patch complexer too much.
>
> [1]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5138c6b5fd239e7ce4e1a4e63826ac27%40anastigmatix.net
It might not make everything too much complex, but e.g. relabeling of
the first argument for a "finish" function into an internal one sounds
strange to me. Maybe there is a way to avoid duplication of the code,
but keep all needed functions in pg_proc?
Btw, sorry to complain about small details, but I find start / finish
naming pattern not quite fitting here. Their main purpose is to extract
/ convert a value, the order in which they are happening is less
relevant.
