Subject: Re: SQL Function Slowness, 8.3.0
From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: "Gavin M. Roy" <gmr@myyearbook.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <20970.1208448770@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <af1bce590804160806t58f7da1g50fc697dd9e6ab08@mail.gmail.com>
	<8328.1208358587@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1208448751.4259.317.camel@ebony.site>
	<20970.1208448770@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:25:57 +0100
Message-Id: <1208449557.4259.331.camel@ebony.site>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 12:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > I think it would help if there was some way to prepare functions to
> > allow them to be posted and understood more easily. These would help:
> 
> > * a name obfuscator, so people can post functions without revealing
> > inner workings of their company and potentially lose intellectual
> > property rights over code posted in that way
> 
> > * a pretty printer, so we can better understand them when we see 'em
> 
> Aren't these suggestions mutually contradictory?

No, they're orthogonal. The pretty printer would get the indenting and
line feeds correct, the obfuscator would replace actual names with "A",
"B" or "Table1" etc..

Obfuscating the names would make the code harder to understand, true,
but only if the code is written in English (or your language-of-choice).
It wouldn't damage our ability to read other language code at all.

-- 
  Simon Riggs
  2ndQuadrant  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com