From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Gavin M. Roy <gmr@myyearbook.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: SQL Function Slowness, 8.3.0
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:50:55 +0100
Message-ID: <1208451055.4259.358.camel@ebony.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <21424.1208450472@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>
<1208449557.4259.331.camel@ebony.site>
<21424.1208450472@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 12:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> > On Thu, 2008-04-17 at 12:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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..
>
> Hmm, that's not what I'd call an "obfuscator", more an "anonymizer".
> Code obfuscators are generally intended to make code unreadable
> (in fact de-pretty-printing is one of their chief techniques).
That's a better term. I did say "name obfuscator" but I can see how that
was confusing, especially with the recent discussion on code
obfuscation. Sorry about that.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
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: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: simon@2ndquadrant.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, gmr@myyearbook.com
Subject: Re: SQL Function Slowness, 8.3.0
In-Reply-To: <1208451055.4259.358.camel@ebony.site>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox