public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: jian he <[email protected]>
To: Paul Jungwirth <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:00:00 +0800
Message-ID: <CACJufxHOO6fS_VZHV3On7P8ZwDcQfbB4Fbc9cgUpr3pd2hpiHQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CA+renyUApHgSZF9-nd-a0+OPGharLQLO=mDHcY4_qQ0+noCUVg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CACJufxFFeUHoBomd2856amDBccNVQZzA=Jrk1_FDdvSZ1+X7og@mail.gmail.com>
<CACJufxEACgLY7YUvzo8j=iOB-z6-1QHAvMr8cUHRP7b_F_vo3A@mail.gmail.com>
<CA+renyXHFFyq1n2+4cwcFoLXqzUhb6u6WCL6wjk8ZjP9WxTExw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CACJufxF8HyERm7SKBJ+duxAP9sTgVhaW6b-oWADANGgn-o4wPA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CACJufxHsYDfHK62FTHdLsgDenvJd_bEuxCiyH62Lacj7NvzX4w@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 1:42 AM Paul Jungwirth
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> v33 attached with minor changes.
>
> Okay, added those tests too. Thanks!
>
> Rebased to 697f8d266c.
>
hi.
minor issues I found in v33-0003.
there are 29 of {check_amproc_signature?.*false}
only one {check_amproc_signature(procform->amproc, opcintype, true}
is this refactoring really worth it?
We also need to refactor gistadjustmembers?
+ <row>
+ <entry><function>intersect</function></entry>
+ <entry>computes intersection with <literal>FOR PORTION OF</literal>
+ bounds</entry>
+ <entry>13</entry>
+ </row>
+ <row>
+ <entry><function>without_portion</function></entry>
+ <entry>computes remaining duration(s) outside
+ <literal>FOR PORTION OF</literal> bounds</entry>
+ <entry>14</entry>
+ </row>
needs to add "(optional)".
+<programlisting>
+Datum
+my_range_intersect(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
+{
+ RangeType *r1 = PG_GETARG_RANGE_P(0);
+ RangeType *r2 = PG_GETARG_RANGE_P(1);
+ TypeCacheEntry *typcache;
+
+ /* Different types should be prevented by ANYRANGE matching rules */
+ if (RangeTypeGetOid(r1) != RangeTypeGetOid(r2))
elog(ERROR, "range
types do not match");
+
+ typcache = range_get_typcache(fcinfo, RangeTypeGetOid(r1));
+
+ PG_RETURN_RANGE_P(range_intersect_internal(typcache, r1, r2));
+}
+</programlisting>
the elog, ERROR indentation is wrong?
+/*
+ * range_without_portion_internal - Sets outputs and outputn to the ranges
+ * remaining and their count (respectively) after subtracting r2 from r1.
+ * The array should never contain empty ranges.
+ * The outputs will be ordered. We expect that outputs is an array of
+ * RangeType pointers, already allocated with two slots.
+ */
+void
+range_without_portion_internal(TypeCacheEntry *typcache, RangeType *r1,
+ RangeType *r2, RangeType **outputs, int *outputn)
the comments need to be refactored?
there is nothing related to "slot"?
not sure the "array" description is right.
(my understanding is compute rangetype r1 and r2, and save the result to
RangeType **outputs.
select proisstrict, proname from pg_proc where proname =
'range_without_portion';
range_without_portion is strict.
but
select range_without_portion(NULL::int4range, int4range(11, 20,'[]'));
return zero rows.
Is this the expected behavior?
0003 seems simple enough.
but it's more related to "for portion of".
not sure we can push 0003 into v17.
view thread (24+ messages)
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: SQL:2011 application time
In-Reply-To: <CACJufxHOO6fS_VZHV3On7P8ZwDcQfbB4Fbc9cgUpr3pd2hpiHQ@mail.gmail.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox