Subject: Re: WIP: Faster Expression Processing v4
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
References: <20161206034955.bh33paeralxbtluv@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20170209003312.rr7atqepgbrf4xqe@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <20170307030137.lpo4japv5oqgbqpz@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <93169b65-6bfb-32c5-9a79-793e27da80d1@2ndquadrant.com>
 <20170308001407.3xrohkxp33jsglqz@alap3.anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
 Doug Doole <ddoole@salesforce.com>
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Organization: 2ndQuadrant
Message-ID: <1744e9b4-53a9-1204-eb05-e7e18eb7c0b9@2ndquadrant.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:51:25 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.12; rv:45.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170308001407.3xrohkxp33jsglqz@alap3.anarazel.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

On 3/7/17 19:14, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Why shouldn't the function itself also depend on the components of its
>> return type?
> Because that'd make it impossible to change the return type components -
> if the return type is baked into the view that's necessary, but for a
> "freestanding function" it's not.  If you e.g. have a function that just
> returns a table's rows, it'd certainly be annoying if that'd prevent you
> from dropping columns.

I think functions breaking when the return type is fiddled with is
actually a not-uncommon problem in practice.  It would be nice if that
could be addressed.  Not necessarily in this patch, but I would like to
keep the options open.  Comments from others would be welcome on this.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers