Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD3344760F9 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:06:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from email03.aon.at (WARSL402PIP6.highway.telekom.at [195.3.96.93]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CCE39476018 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 14:06:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 60658 invoked from network); 9 Oct 2002 18:06:25 -0000 Received: from m155p004.dipool.highway.telekom.at (HELO cantor) ([62.46.9.68]) (envelope-sender ) by qmail3rs.highway.telekom.at (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 9 Oct 2002 18:06:25 -0000 From: Manfred Koizar To: Tom Lane Cc: shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-general , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [pgsql-performance] Large databases, performance Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 20:09:03 +0200 Message-ID: References: <3D9C3E05.7070906@clearmetrix.com> <3DA1A331.21316.F7E742B@localhost> <19697.1034170370@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <19697.1034170370@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Mailer: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200210/518 X-Sequence-Number: 31516 On Wed, 09 Oct 2002 09:32:50 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >Coupla quick comments on these: My first attempt on user types; thanks for the tips. >These functions are dangerous as written, because they will crash on >null inputs. I'd suggest marking them strict in the function >declarations. I was not aware of this, just wondered why bpchar routines didn't crash :-) Fixed. >Some attention to volatility declarations (isCachable >or isImmutable) would be a good idea too. >Also, it'd be faster and more portable to write the functions with >version-1 calling conventions. Done, too. In the meantime I've found out why it crashed with 7.3: INSERT INTO pg_opclass is now obsolete, have to use CREATE OPERATOR CLASS ... Servus Manfred