On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I think that what we ought to do about it is to stop exposing typelem >>> in domains' pg_type rows. If you want to subscript a domain value, you >>> should have to drill down to its base type with getBaseTypeAndTypmod, >>> which would also give you the correct typmod to apply. If we set >>> typelem to zero in domain pg_type rows, it shouldn't take too long to >>> find any places that are missing this consideration --- the breakage >>> will be obvious rather than subtle. > >> I fear that this is going to degrade the performance of common cases >> as a way of debugging rare cases. > > We've already accepted the cost of doing getBaseTypeAndTypmod() in a > whole lot of performance-critical parsing paths, on the off chance that > the target datatype might be a domain. It's not apparent to me that > array subscripting is so important as to deserve an exemption from that. > Especially when not doing so doesn't work.
Hmm... so are there no cases where zeroing out the typelem will cost us an otherwise-unnecessary syscache lookup? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
