> On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 08:23:52AM GMT, Andy Fan wrote: > > >> > I imagined you'd the patch should create a SupportRequestSimplify > >> > support function for jsonb_numeric() that checks if the input > >> > expression is an OpExpr with funcid of jsonb_object_field(). All you > >> > do then is ditch the cast and change the OpExpr to call a new function > >> > named jsonb_object_field_numeric() which returns the val.numeric > >> > directly. Likely the same support function could handle jsonb casts > >> > to other types too, in which case you'd just call some other function, > >> > e.g jsonb_object_field_timestamp() or jsonb_object_field_boolean(). > >> > >> Basically yes. The reason complexity comes when we many operators we > >> want to optimize AND my patch I want to reduce the number of function > >> created. > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> Within the start / finish function, we need to create *7* functions. > > > > Any particular reason you want to keep number of functions minimal? Is > > it just to make the patch smaller? I might be missing something without > > looking at the implementation in details, but the difference between 10 > > and 7 functions doesn't seem to be significant. > > Another reason is for reducing code duplication, writting too many > similar function looks not good to me. Chapman expressed this idea > first at [1]. Search "it would make me happy to further reduce some > of the code" in the message. > > Acutally this doesn't make the patch complexer too much. > > [1] > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/5138c6b5fd239e7ce4e1a4e63826ac27%40anastigmatix.net
It might not make everything too much complex, but e.g. relabeling of the first argument for a "finish" function into an internal one sounds strange to me. Maybe there is a way to avoid duplication of the code, but keep all needed functions in pg_proc? Btw, sorry to complain about small details, but I find start / finish naming pattern not quite fitting here. Their main purpose is to extract / convert a value, the order in which they are happening is less relevant.
