Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

On 24 January 2017 at 02:36, Tom Lane wrote: > It might be possible to get away with having only one pg_type column, > pointing at the parse-analysis function. That function would generate > a SubscriptingRef tree node containing the OID of the appropriate > execution

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 2:31 AM, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 24 January 2017 at 02:07, Tom Lane wrote: >> I took an extremely quick look over the patch > > Thank you for the feedback. It took some time for me to think about all > suggestions and notes.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

> On 24 January 2017 at 02:07, Tom Lane wrote: > I took an extremely quick look over the patch Thank you for the feedback. It took some time for me to think about all suggestions and notes. > 1. As I mentioned previously, it's a seriously bad idea that ArrayRef > is used for

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > So I'd really prefer that the functionality > involve a parser callout, and that would certainly need "internal" > argument(s). Thanks, I see now. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

Robert Haas writes: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Can we arrange to do that differently? I'd prefer something in which the >> argument and result types are visibly connected to the actual datatypes >> at hand, for instance >>

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Can we arrange to do that differently? I'd prefer something in which the > argument and result types are visibly connected to the actual datatypes > at hand, for instance > array_subscript(anyarray, internal)

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

I wrote: > BTW, a different approach that might be worth considering is to say that > the nodetree representation of one of these things *is* a FuncExpr, and > the new magic thing is just that we invent a new CoercionForm value > which causes ruleutils.c to print the expression as a subscripting

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

On 1/23/17 1:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Is there a way for a function in an extension to find the OID of one of its sibling functions? Obviously there's regprocedure (or it's C equivalent), but then you're stuck re-computing at runtime. I've messed around with that a bit in an effort to have an

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

I wrote: > ... (If that means > we use two functions not one per datatype, that's fine with me.) Actually, after thinking about that a bit more: you've really squeezed *three* different APIs into one function. Namely, subscript-reference parse analysis, array subscripting execution, and array

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> writes: > [ generic_type_subscription_v6.patch ] Not too surprisingly, this doesn't apply anymore in the wake of commit ea15e1867. Could you rebase? Changes for that should be pretty trivial I'd expect. I took an extremely quick look over the patch ---

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

> Yes, but it was related to the idea of having `ArrayRef` and `JsonbRef` nodes > for specific types. Since now there is generic `SubscriptingRef` node, I think > it should be ok. Sorry I misunderstood it. > Just to be clear - as far as I understood, these compilation problems were > caused not

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

> On 4 January 2017 at 18:06, Artur Zakirov wrote: > But I'm not convinced about how to distinguish ArrayRef node with new > SubscriptingRef node. I'm not sure I understood you correctly. You're talking about having two nodes `ArrayRef` and `SubscriptingRef` at the same

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

2016-12-27 14:42 GMT+05:00 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com>: >> On 27 December 2016 at 16:09, Aleksander Alekseev >> wrote: >> until it breaks existing extensions. > > Hm...I already answered, that I managed to avoid compilation problems for > this particular

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

> On 27 December 2016 at 16:09, Aleksander Alekseev < a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > until it breaks existing extensions. Hm...I already answered, that I managed to avoid compilation problems for this particular extension using the `genparser` command again: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:56

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

As I mentioned above [1] in my humble opinion this patch is not at all in a "good shape" until it breaks existing extensions. [1] http://postgr.es/m/20161115080324.GA5351%40e733.localdomain On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 10:49:30PM +0700, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > > On 5 December 2016 at 12:03, Haribabu

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

2016-12-26 18:49 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com>: >> On 5 December 2016 at 12:03, Haribabu Kommi >> wrote: > >> Moved to next CF with "needs review" status. > > Looks like we stuck here little bit. Does anyone else have any > suggestions/improvements, or

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

> On 5 December 2016 at 12:03, Haribabu Kommi wrote: > > Moved to next CF with "needs review" status. Looks like we stuck here little bit. Does anyone else have any suggestions/improvements, or this patch is in good enough shape?

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 15 November 2016 at 15:03, Aleksander Alekseev < > a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > Hello. > > > > I took a look on the latest -v4 patch. I would like to note that this > > patch breaks a backward

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

> On 15 November 2016 at 15:03, Aleksander Alekseev < a.aleks...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > Hello. > > I took a look on the latest -v4 patch. I would like to note that this > patch breaks a backward compatibility. For instance sr_plan extension[1] > stop to compile with errors Thank you for the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

Hello. I took a look on the latest -v4 patch. I would like to note that this patch breaks a backward compatibility. For instance sr_plan extension[1] stop to compile with errors like: ``` serialize.c:38:2: error: unknown type name ‘ArrayRef’ JsonbValue *ArrayRef_ser(const ArrayRef *node,

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

Hello, Do you have an updated version of the patch? 2016-10-18 20:41 GMT+03:00 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com>: > > > > The term "subscription" is confusing me > > Yes, you're right. "container" is too general I think, so I renamed > everything > to "subscripting". > There is another

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

Hello, On 04.10.2016 11:28, Victor Wagner wrote: Git complains about whitespace in this version of patch: $ git apply ../generic_type_subscription_v2.patch ../generic_type_subscription_v2.patch:218: tab in indent. int first; ../generic_type_subscription_v2.patch:219: tab in

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 6:48 AM, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 October 2016 at 03:00, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > >> >> have you ever run 'make check' ? >> >> = >> 53 of 168 tests failed. >> = >> >> > Sure, how

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

On 5 October 2016 at 03:00, Oleg Bartunov wrote: > > have you ever run 'make check' ? > > = > 53 of 168 tests failed. > = > > Sure, how else could I write tests for this feature? But right now on my machine everything is ok

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've tried to compile this patch with current state of master (commit > > 51c3e9fade76c12) and found out that, when configured with > --enable-cassert, > > it doesn't pass make check. > > Thanks for the feedback.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

On Sat, 1 Oct 2016 16:52:34 +0700 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've tried to compile this patch with current state of master > > (commit 51c3e9fade76c12) and found out that, when configured with > --enable-cassert, > > it doesn't pass make check. > > Thanks for the

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 18:29:23 +0700 Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Regarding to the previous conversations [1], [2], here is a patch > (with some improvements from Nikita Glukhov) for the generic type > subscription. It allows > to define type-specific subscription logic

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscription

On 9/9/16 6:29 AM, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: Regarding to the previous conversations [1], [2], here is a patch (with some improvements from Nikita Glukhov) for the generic type subscription. Awesome! Please make sure to add it to the Commit Fest app. -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble