[Maria-discuss] Stored Procedure debugger from Peter Gulutzan and Trudy Pelzer
Hi, Peter Gulutzan and Trudy Pelzer announced their GUI debugger for stored procedures. Sources, binaries and a demo are available here: http://ocelot.ca/blog/blog/2015/03/02/the-ocelotgui-debugger/ This is a great news. Greetings. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Maria-discuss] Enabling feedback pluging for MariaDB 10.1.4
Hi, Justin! On Mar 09, Justin Swanhart wrote: I agree with Kristian. Given the way it works, the statistics are really meaningless and I feel you shouldn't drive important choices based on bad statistics. Of course. This statistics is not *the only* argument. For important decisions there are always many aspects to consider. The statistics is just another data, in addition to and *I* think that every user needs feature X and never uses the feature Y :) I personally would suggest displaying a link to a feedback/survey form with web downloads and display a message after rpm/deb installation that says something like please visit http://blah/blah/blah/survey to tell us more about the features you use and help direct the future development of MariaDB. This has an added bonus: not all users know about all features, and a list/survey of the important and interesting ones could get more users to use them. A survey is a pretty good idea, thanks! It may not provide a much better (as in representative sample) statistics, but it will surely tell the users about the features. Regards, Sergei ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Maria-discuss] Enabling feedback pluging for MariaDB 10.1.4
Hi, Kristian! On Mar 09, Kristian Nielsen wrote: As most MariaDB users should know, the feedback is totally anonymous and no private or sensitive information is being sent. Any comments, suggestions or recommendations? I think it is a bad idea. Please do not do it. Phone-home is a misfeature in any product, and even more so in system software like a database. Agree. I don't like it myself. Still between that and random development decisions driven by the marketing department, I just might prefer phone-home. And besides, the information is much less useful than you think, because of unknown, but probably extreme, data skew. In fact, it will probably be more harmful than useful because people will use bad data to justify bad decisions. Right, but there are three approaches to this. First, try to get more reports, in the hope that it'll be a representative sample. That's what we're discussing this email thread. Second, take the known skew into account when analyzing the data. For example, see the OS stats chart (http://mariadb.org/feedback_plugin/stats/os/) - it doesn't mean that 96.3% of MariaDB installations are on Windows, it means that we have disproportionally more reports from Windows. And third, use numbers where the skew doesn't matter. For example, total number of installations. Experience supports this point of view with our download numbers. They do not include apt-get / yum / etc. installations, which judging from IRC conversations are the majority. Yet people continuely refer to them as though they mean anything, just because they are there. Of course they mean something. They show, literally, how many times mariadb was downloaded from downloads.mariadb.org. As such, they show that mariadb was downloaded (from all sources) *at least* that many times. Also, one can *reasonably assume* that the number of downloads from all other sources follows the grows of downloads from mariadb.org (unless the number of other sources changes). These numbers mean a lot. They just don't mean the total number of all mariadb installation (from all sources). Which is pretty obvious :) Regards, Sergei ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Maria-discuss] Enabling feedback pluging for MariaDB 10.1.4
Hi, Adam! On Mar 09, Adam Scott wrote: Maybe make it an option when installing? Yes, that'd be great. On Windows there's a GUI installer, and it has a checkbox for feedback plugin. That's why we get 95% of reports from Windows. Most users don't mind having it enabled, so it seems. So if rpm/deb packages would ask about feedback - that'll help a lot. It just needs be done carefully not to break unattended installs. Regards, Sergei ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Maria-discuss] R: Stored Procedure debugger from Peter Gulutzan and Trudy Pelzer
I don't want to show critisism against projects like this - I hope that this is clear. There are many debuggers, and they are more than welcome. Even Oracle has a debugger, if you use Windows and Visual Studio (sigh). But I still think that MariaDB needs a native debug API, which fully supports checkpoints/flow control, context inspection and exposes the call stack. I doubt that an external debugger that transparently adds debug code could possibly replace it, especially if your business logic is complex. I've tried to write a debug library in SQL - the problems I've found make me seriously doubt on the possibility to follow this path. Regards Federico Mar 10/3/15, Alexander Barkov b...@mariadb.org ha scritto: Oggetto: [Maria-discuss] Stored Procedure debugger from Peter Gulutzan and Trudy Pelzer A: Maria Discuss maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Data: Martedì 10 marzo 2015, 11:42 Hi, Peter Gulutzan and Trudy Pelzer announced their GUI debugger for stored procedures. Sources, binaries and a demo are available here: http://ocelot.ca/blog/blog/2015/03/02/the-ocelotgui-debugger/ This is a great news. Greetings. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Maria-discuss] Source package for Ubuntu Precise is missing
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 10:48 PM, Kouhei Sutou k...@clear-code.com wrote: It seems that source package of MariaDB 10.0.17 for Ubuntu Precise Pangolin (12.04 LTS) isn't provided. Binary packages for Precise Pangolin are provided. mariadb-10.0_10.0.17+maria-1~trusty.dsc (for Trusty Tahr) and mariadb-10.0_10.0.17+maria-1~utopic.dsc (for Utopic Unicorn) exist at: http://mirror.jmu.edu/pub/mariadb/repo/10.0/ubuntu/pool/main/m/mariadb-10.0/ But for Precise doesn't exist at there. Is Precise support finished? Could you confirm it? Thanks for bringing this to my attention. There were some changes made in how we generate the repositories and the mariadb-10.0_10.0.17+maria-1~precise.dsc and mariadb-10.0_10.0.17+maria-1~precise.tar.gz files were left out of the repositories by accident. I've added them to the repositories and I'm now uploading the added files to the primary mirror. After the files finish uploading the other mirrors, like the jmu.edu one will be updated with the new files as soon as they next pull from the primary mirror. FYI: According to the MariaDB Deprecation Policy we will continue to provide MariaDB packages for precise through at least April 2017, basically as long as Ubuntu is supporting Precise. FYI: Source package of MariaDB 5.5.42 for Ubuntu Precise Pangolin (12.04 LTS) is provided. http://mirror.jmu.edu/pub/mariadb/repo/5.5/ubuntu/pool/main/m/mariadb-5.5/ Yes. The change was made between the 5.5.42 and 10.0.17 releases. And yes, I've also fixed the process error that led to the files being excluded, so it shouldn't happen in the future. :-) Thanks again! -- Daniel Bartholomew, MariaDB Release Manager MariaDB | http://mariadb.com ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Maria-discuss] GSOC 2015 :UDFs returning arrays
No,
You SAY the UDF can support them, but you neglect to point to a technical
way how.
If you want to return a row as an array, well, how do you add an item to a
row outside of the UDF, remove one? How do you count the items in the
row? How do you get an item by index? If you want to use internal
Item_result, well, how do you access item functions without a THD? You
can't get a THD in a UDF, except an opaque pointer to one, unless you pull
in half the server and it isn't really legal to do so. How do you pass
an array to a stored routine, how does the routine modify it, can routines
return arrays or just UDF? Row as an array is a ludicrous hack. You can't
even pass row to other functions.
If you want a new UDF interface that can do those things, use a pluggable
item function which I linked to the patch to. You absolutely can't change
an unversioned binary interface like the existing UDF without risking
server crash.
So, if you want ARRAY to be returned by a UDF, you have to start with a new
UDF interface. Again, pluggable item func are the right way to do it.
--Justin
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Oleksandr Byelkin sa...@montyprogram.com
wrote:
Hi!
On 10.03.15 21:01, Justin Swanhart wrote:
[accidentally replied only to sender, pasting reply here to all]
Hi,
So how exactly would you go about returning a row type? You get four
choices with UDF:
STRING_RESULT
INT_RESULT
REAL_RESULT
DECIMAL_RESULT (which is handled just like strings, because decimal was a
string when UDF interface was baked)
You can't change the UDF specification. It is not versioned :)
I was talking about server internal support which is:
enum Item_result
{
STRING_RESULT=0, REAL_RESULT, INT_RESULT, ROW_RESULT, DECIMAL_RESULT,
TIME_RESULT,IMPOSSIBLE_RESULT
};
and UDF also can support more :)
[skip]
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss
Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Maria-discuss] R: GSOC 2015 :UDFs returning arrays
wl#820 also has table functions in it: http://antbits.blogspot.com/2009/01/table-functions-in-mysql.html mysql INSTALL PLUGIN Deep_Thought SONAME 'psm_example.so'; Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.10 sec) mysql CREATE FUNCTION test.FooAnswer() - RETURNS TABLE(answer TEXT) - NO SQL LANGUAGE Deep_Thought EXTERNAL NAME 'compute'; Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.01 sec) mysql CREATE VIEW foobar AS SELECT * FROM TABLE(test.FooAnswer) AS wibble; Query OK, 0 rows affected (0.01 sec) mysql SELECT * FROM foobar WHERE answer LIKE 'F%'; +---+ | answer| +---+ | Forty-Two | +---+ 1 row in set (0.01 sec) On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Sergei Golubchik s...@mariadb.org wrote: Hi, Justin! On Mar 10, Justin Swanhart wrote: I am not sure of the point of that mdev. First, arrays are not table functions. Arrays are data structures. A table function can certainly return all the items in an array data structure as rows (which would be part of #820) but that doesn't mean that a table function could replace an ARRAY data type. Arrays also have to be able to be passed to stored routines and stored in tables too, or they are virtually useless. Yes, the subject says UDF returning arrays/ result set, and the point is to have result set, not just an array. Second, WL#820, which far precedes that mdev, adds real table functions without magic pretend storage engine as suggested in the later mdev. In any case, you can't return an array or table, from a UDF, without changing the UDF interface which will break other UDF. The UDF interface IS NOT VERSIONED. Right. But MDEV-5199 doesn't need to use or extend existing UDF interface. It simply uses UDF to mean user definable function without implying that it has anything to do with existing UDFs. wl#820 adds external stored procedures and doesn't modify the udf interface (UDF can rot) The mysql bug link I sent makes item functions internally pluggable, so they could support table functions as well and provide a replacement for UDF. Add an ARRAY data type and implement these patches (which are from Antony Curtis) and you'll get what you want. It would be a real shame to replace wl#820 work with some half-backed UDF that has not access to internals. This is largely unrelated. This MDEV-5199 is about user functions that can return a table. Something like SELECT * FROM t1, tf(15, NOW()) as t2 WHERE t1.a=t2.b; So, it's about the server that can invoke a UDF in this context and retrieve many rows from the user function. While wl#820 is about the language in which this user function is written. Regards, Sergei ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Maria-discuss] Enabling feedback pluging for MariaDB 10.1.4
Hi, Justin! On Mar 10, Justin Swanhart wrote: Where is it described exactly what is collected? Descriptions I see say it is basically ... well, no, I want a full description of all data collected, particularly if it collects versions of software as knowing what version of software I'm running lets you know what I'm vulnerable to. It's explained here: https://mariadb.com/kb/en/feedback-plugin/ Basically :) you can do mysql -e 'select * from information_schema.feedback' report.txt curl -F data=@report.txt https://mariadb.org/feedback_plugin/post and the result will be exactly the same. And you can set --feedback-url to any url of your choice and see exactly what is being sent. Is the data sent via SSL? Yes, by default. Unless you change feedback_url to use http, not https. Is the data stored encrypted in your data center? No, I don't think so. I certainly don't want my c library version, mariadb version, etc, sent in clear over the internet where anybody can read it, and I don't want it stored unencrypted at rest somewhere, where someone can just abscond with it. C library version is not sent, MariaDB version is. But they're not tied to you - nobody can trace these data back, we certainly cannot. Regards, Sergei ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Maria-discuss] R: GSOC 2015 :UDFs returning arrays
Hi, I am not sure of the point of that mdev. First, arrays are not table functions. Arrays are data structures. A table function can certainly return all the items in an array data structure as rows (which would be part of #820) but that doesn't mean that a table function could replace an ARRAY data type. Arrays also have to be able to be passed to stored routines and stored in tables too, or they are virtually useless. Second, WL#820, which far precedes that mdev, adds real table functions without magic pretend storage engine as suggested in the later mdev. In any case, you can't return an array or table, from a UDF, without changing the UDF interface which will break other UDF. The UDF interface IS NOT VERSIONED. wl#820 adds external stored procedures and doesn't modify the udf interface (UDF can rot) The mysql bug link I sent makes item functions internally pluggable, so they could support table functions as well and provide a replacement for UDF. Add an ARRAY data type and implement these patches (which are from Antony Curtis) and you'll get what you want. It would be a real shame to replace wl#820 work with some half-backed UDF that has not access to internals. --Justin On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Federico Razzoli federico_...@yahoo.it wrote: This JIRA task doesn't mention GSoC, but it seems to be what you are asking for: https://mariadb.atlassian.net/browse/MDEV-5199 Hope it helps. Federico Mar 10/3/15, Delveri chick chickdelv...@gmail.com ha scritto: Oggetto: [Maria-discuss] GSOC 2015 :UDFs returning arrays A: maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Data: Martedì 10 marzo 2015, 19:28 Hi My name is Blessing Atie and i would love to participate in the Google summer of code 2015 under Mariadb. I am interested in the project UDF returning arrays. I have build mariadb from source and and i also ran the test suites. I am currently studing the sql/sql.** files to understand UDF's and i also downloaded some ebook on mysql internals and mysql plugin development which im reading while hoping to find a breakthrough on this project in them. I would love to know if there are any bugs related to this task on JIRA I could work on as a means of preparing for the project.Please give me the link. Regards -Segue allegato- ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Maria-discuss] GSOC 2015 :UDFs returning arrays
Hi! On 10.03.15 19:38, Justin Swanhart wrote: Hi, MySQL has no ARRAY data type. In array is basicaly a nested table data type and MySQL doesn't support nested tables either, except through dynamic columns. So, a UDF that returned an array could only be used by other UDF that understand arrays. That isn't very useful. Strictly speaking server support row type (also kind of array). It can be used in comparison operations and returned/used in a subquery. [skip] ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Maria-discuss] GSOC 2015 :UDFs returning arrays
[accidentally replied only to sender, pasting reply here to all] Hi, So how exactly would you go about returning a row type? You get four choices with UDF: STRING_RESULT INT_RESULT REAL_RESULT DECIMAL_RESULT (which is handled just like strings, because decimal was a string when UDF interface was baked) You can't change the UDF specification. It is not versioned :) On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Oleksandr Byelkin sa...@montyprogram.com wrote: Hi! On 10.03.15 19:38, Justin Swanhart wrote: Hi, MySQL has no ARRAY data type. In array is basicaly a nested table data type and MySQL doesn't support nested tables either, except through dynamic columns. So, a UDF that returned an array could only be used by other UDF that understand arrays. That isn't very useful. Strictly speaking server support row type (also kind of array). It can be used in comparison operations and returned/used in a subquery. [skip] ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Maria-discuss] R: GSOC 2015 :UDFs returning arrays
This JIRA task doesn't mention GSoC, but it seems to be what you are asking for: https://mariadb.atlassian.net/browse/MDEV-5199 Hope it helps. Federico Mar 10/3/15, Delveri chick chickdelv...@gmail.com ha scritto: Oggetto: [Maria-discuss] GSOC 2015 :UDFs returning arrays A: maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Data: Martedì 10 marzo 2015, 19:28 Hi My name is Blessing Atie and i would love to participate in the Google summer of code 2015 under Mariadb. I am interested in the project UDF returning arrays. I have build mariadb from source and and i also ran the test suites. I am currently studing the sql/sql.** files to understand UDF's and i also downloaded some ebook on mysql internals and mysql plugin development which im reading while hoping to find a breakthrough on this project in them. I would love to know if there are any bugs related to this task on JIRA I could work on as a means of preparing for the project.Please give me the link. Regards -Segue allegato- ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Maria-discuss] GSOC 2015 :UDFs returning arrays
Hi My name is Blessing Atie and i would love to participate in the Google summer of code 2015 under Mariadb. I am interested in the project UDF returning arrays. I have build mariadb from source and and i also ran the test suites. I am currently studing the sql/sql.** files to understand UDF's and i also downloaded some ebook on mysql internals and mysql plugin development which im reading while hoping to find a breakthrough on this project in them. I would love to know if there are any bugs related to this task on JIRA I could work on as a means of preparing for the project. Please give me the link. Regards ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Maria-discuss] GSOC 2015 :UDFs returning arrays
Hi, MySQL has no ARRAY data type. In array is basicaly a nested table data type and MySQL doesn't support nested tables either, except through dynamic columns. So, a UDF that returned an array could only be used by other UDF that understand arrays. That isn't very useful. I see two options if you want to push this forward: a) If you want this to work with MySQL too (the UDF interface is identical) then pass data back as delimited text. For example, I have a UDF called RAPID_EXTRACT_ALL(..) which extracts all values for a key from a JSON document, and returns the values separated by newline. I have stored routines (or other UDF) that understand newline separated input (essentially arrays). I don't think you can do much better for MySQL at the moment. b) If you want to be compatible with only MariaDB, what you could do is return a BLOB that is properly formatted as a DYNCOL. This way COLUMN_GET, COLUMN_JSON, etc, could work on the blob, and there is a well defined interface for transmitting and accessing the data. Neither really require development on your part though, except to understand how to pack a DYNCOL blob properly. --Justin On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Delveri chick chickdelv...@gmail.com wrote: Hi My name is Blessing Atie and i would love to participate in the Google summer of code 2015 under Mariadb. I am interested in the project UDF returning arrays. I have build mariadb from source and and i also ran the test suites. I am currently studing the sql/sql.** files to understand UDF's and i also downloaded some ebook on mysql internals and mysql plugin development which im reading while hoping to find a breakthrough on this project in them. I would love to know if there are any bugs related to this task on JIRA I could work on as a means of preparing for the project. Please give me the link. Regards ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Maria-discuss] GSOC 2015 :UDFs returning arrays
Hi! On 10.03.15 21:41, Justin Swanhart wrote: No, You SAY the UDF can support them, but you neglect to point to a technical way how. If you want to return a row as an array, well, how do you add an item to a row outside of the UDF, remove one? How do you count the items in the row? How do you get an item by index? If you want to use internal Item_result, well, how do you access item functions without a THD? You can't get a THD in a UDF, except an opaque pointer to one, unless you pull in half the server and it isn't really legal to do so. How do you pass an array to a stored routine, how does the routine modify it, can routines return arrays or just UDF? Row as an array is a ludicrous hack. You can't even pass row to other functions. If you want a new UDF interface that can do those things, use a pluggable item function which I linked to the patch to. You absolutely can't change an unversioned binary interface like the existing UDF without risking server crash. So, if you want ARRAY to be returned by a UDF, you have to start with a new UDF interface. Again, pluggable item func are the right way to do it. It looks like you misunderstand me. I do not want something with UDF at all, I just mentioned that internally there is something array-like and somebody who will do the task can be aware of it. P.S.: But now I see that UDF interface should be changed due to problems you mentioned. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Maria-discuss] Enabling feedback pluging for MariaDB 10.1.4
Hi, Federico! On Mar 10, Federico Razzoli wrote: I am no lawyer, but please consider possible legal problems for users. 1) I sign an NDA with my customer 2) I enable Feedback 3) You see things I shouldn't reveal. I know that my data are not sent. And you say it's anonymous. But you will have at least the server's IP and MAC. The real problem is not if we trust trusting YOU (I do) - the real problem is that sending that data could be illegal. Right, this could happen. I have no solution for this, only few assorted thoughts: * not we say it's anonymous, you don't have to trust, you can verify it. It's not a solution, because under NDA you might not be allowed to send even anonymous data. Still you can see what is being sent, no need to trust. * We won't have MAC address. But the IP address will be in the apache logs (even if I'd say we won't log IP addresses you won't be able to verify it). * The idea was to enable feedback plugin in beta and disable it before GA. And beta versions come with a warning don't use in production. Regards, Sergei ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Maria-discuss] GSOC 2015 :UDFs returning arrays
Hi, Sorry for the misunderstanding. On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 3:17 PM, Oleksandr Byelkin sa...@montyprogram.com wrote: Hi! On 10.03.15 21:41, Justin Swanhart wrote: No, You SAY the UDF can support them, but you neglect to point to a technical way how. If you want to return a row as an array, well, how do you add an item to a row outside of the UDF, remove one? How do you count the items in the row? How do you get an item by index? If you want to use internal Item_result, well, how do you access item functions without a THD? You can't get a THD in a UDF, except an opaque pointer to one, unless you pull in half the server and it isn't really legal to do so. How do you pass an array to a stored routine, how does the routine modify it, can routines return arrays or just UDF? Row as an array is a ludicrous hack. You can't even pass row to other functions. If you want a new UDF interface that can do those things, use a pluggable item function which I linked to the patch to. You absolutely can't change an unversioned binary interface like the existing UDF without risking server crash. So, if you want ARRAY to be returned by a UDF, you have to start with a new UDF interface. Again, pluggable item func are the right way to do it. It looks like you misunderstand me. I do not want something with UDF at all, I just mentioned that internally there is something array-like and somebody who will do the task can be aware of it. P.S.: But now I see that UDF interface should be changed due to problems you mentioned. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss Post to : maria-discuss@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
