Thread: Re: [PATCHES] Bundle of patches
Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes: > 1) Typmod for user-defined types > http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/user_defined_typmod-0.7.gz > Patch is based on ideas from > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-06/msg00932.php > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-08/msg01007.php This one seems generally workable, but I really dislike the approach that's been used for passing typmod arguments to the typmod_in function. Representing them with an "internal" parameter means it'll be forever impossible to write typmod functions in anything but C, which seems an ugly restriction. Perhaps an array of int4 would be better? How much flexibility do we really want to provide for typmod arguments? Allowing full "expr_list" in the grammar seems less than sane, considering the result is still going to have to pack into 32 bits. The patch needs more cleanup before applying, too, eg make comments match code, get rid of unused keywords added to gram.y. regards, tom lane
> This one seems generally workable, but I really dislike the approach
> that's been used for passing typmod arguments to the typmod_in function.
> Representing them with an "internal" parameter means it'll be forever
> impossible to write typmod functions in anything but C, which seems an
> ugly restriction. Perhaps an array of int4 would be better? How much
I don't think that is a problem - I'll change that
> flexibility do we really want to provide for typmod arguments? Allowing
> full "expr_list" in the grammar seems less than sane, considering the
> result is still going to have to pack into 32 bits.
As I remember, I tried to use some thing else but, I've got a lot conflicts
with
AexprConst:
func_name '(' expr_list ')' Sconst
>
> The patch needs more cleanup before applying, too, eg make comments
> match code, get rid of unused keywords added to gram.y.
Ok.
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 02:04:26PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes: > > 1) Typmod for user-defined types > > http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/user_defined_typmod-0.7.gz > > Patch is based on ideas from > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-06/msg00932.php > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-08/msg01007.php > > This one seems generally workable, but I really dislike the approach > that's been used for passing typmod arguments to the typmod_in function. > Representing them with an "internal" parameter means it'll be forever > impossible to write typmod functions in anything but C, which seems an > ugly restriction. Perhaps an array of int4 would be better? How much > flexibility do we really want to provide for typmod arguments? Allowing > full "expr_list" in the grammar seems less than sane, considering the > result is still going to have to pack into 32 bits. People have been discussion passing character set names as typmod parameters, so restricting them to int4 seems too tight. I'd favour the approach where the arguments to the typmod_in function determine the types required. This allows the system to do proper checking and casting and most important of all, good error messages, eg: ERROR: Invalid argument to type: must be one of numeric(), numeric(integer), numeric(integer, integer) Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
Attachment
>> Perhaps an array of int4 would be better? How much Done http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/user_defined_typmod-0.9.gz >> The patch needs more cleanup before applying, too, eg make comments >> match code, get rid of unused keywords added to gram.y. Cleaned. -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes: >>> Perhaps an array of int4 would be better? How much > Done > http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/user_defined_typmod-0.9.gz >>> The patch needs more cleanup before applying, too, eg make comments >>> match code, get rid of unused keywords added to gram.y. > Cleaned. OK. I'm up to my rear in the opclass/opfamily rewrite, but will take another look at the typmod code as soon as I have a working HEAD again ;-) regards, tom lane
0.9 doesn't apply cleanly after Peter's changes, so, new version http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/user_defined_typmod-0.10.gz Teodor Sigaev wrote: > >> Perhaps an array of int4 would be better? How much > > Done > http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/user_defined_typmod-0.9.gz > >>> The patch needs more cleanup before applying, too, eg make comments >>> match code, get rid of unused keywords added to gram.y. > > Cleaned. > > -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
Just a freshing for clean applying.. http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/user_defined_typmod-0.11.gz Is any objections to commit? -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes: > Just a freshing for clean applying.. > http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/user_defined_typmod-0.11.gz > Is any objections to commit? There's still a lot I don't particularly care for here (lack of documentation being the biggest), but I'll make a pass at cleaning it up. One thought I had after a quick reading of the patch is that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of percentage in trying to move the typmod handling for time/timestamp/interval types into callable functions, because we still have to special-case the darn things thanks to the SQL spec's oddball syntax requirements. For instance in format_type_be() you've got case TIMETZOID: if (with_typemod) ! buf = psnprintf(50, "time(%d) with time zone", ! typemod); else buf = pstrdup("time with time zone"); break; changed to case TIMETZOID: if (with_typemod) ! buf = printTypmod("time", typemod, typeform->typmodoutput); else buf = pstrdup("time with time zone"); break; which hardly seems like much of an improvement. If we could have gotten rid of the switch() branch for TIMETZOID entirely, then we'd be somewhere, but there's no chance because the typmod-less case still has to be special. So I'm sort of inclined to leave the processing of these datatypes as-is, and only use the typmodin/typmodout infrastructure for datatypes that follow the "canonical" syntax of type_name(int[,int ...]). Thoughts? regards, tom lane
Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes: > Just a freshing for clean applying.. > http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/user_defined_typmod-0.11.gz Applied with some revisions, and pg_dump support and regression tests added. regards, tom lane
Nice, thanks a lot. Tom Lane wrote: > Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes: >> Just a freshing for clean applying.. >> http://www.sigaev.ru/misc/user_defined_typmod-0.11.gz > > Applied with some revisions, and pg_dump support and regression tests > added. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/