2009/8/10 Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net>: > On Sunday 09 August 2009 05:21:48 Jeff Davis wrote: >> * If the hook can implement XML, should we refactor the XML support (and >> COALESCE, etc.) to use the hook for the sake of consistency? If the hook >> is not good enough for those features, that might indicate a problem. > > Well, for 8.4, I proposed to rewrite xmlconcat, which is currently part of > that hardcoded XML support, into a variadic function. That was shot down for > some unclear backwards compatibility reason. (I guess, someone might have > created their own xmlconcat function in a public schema and would now be > surprised that it's actually callable?!?) With that in mind, what chances of > success will a plan have that proposes to reimplement a bunch of core > functionality like COALESCE in user space? > > Another example that was mentioned during PGCon and that these hooks may or > may not be useful for is somehow de-hardcoding various SQL-standard > parentheses-less functions such as current_timestamp (thus opening the door > for implementing Oracle's sysdate in userspace), but it's again unclear to me > whether that would not be objected to if those functions became subject to the > schema search path. >
This patch doesn't help with it. But I thing so we will have other hook in transformation - column name. This hook will serve for detection plpgsql variables in SQL statement. And this hook should be used for some parentheses-less functions. regards Pavel > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
