"D'Arcy Cain" writes:
> On 12-06-23 08:21 AM, Dickson S. Guedes wrote:
>> Try in the search box of postgres doxygen documentation [1]..
> That's source, not documentation. I already found it in the actual
> source files but that's not the same thing. For one thing, if it
> isn't documented then
On 12-06-23 08:21 AM, Dickson S. Guedes wrote:
Still nothing in the documentation. At least the search box doesn't
find it.
Try in the search box of postgres doxygen documentation [1]..
That's source, not documentation. I already found it in the actual
source files but that's not the same t
2012/6/23 D'Arcy Cain :
> On 12-06-23 12:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> "D'Arcy Cain" writes:
>>>
>>> On 12-06-22 07:09 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
I think DirectionFunctionCall2 is what you want.
>>
>>
>>> Can you elaborate? I could not find a single hit in Google or the
>>> documentation sea
On 12-06-23 12:17 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
"D'Arcy Cain" writes:
On 12-06-22 07:09 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
I think DirectionFunctionCall2 is what you want.
Can you elaborate? I could not find a single hit in Google or the
documentation search on the PG site and it does not appear anywhere
in the
"D'Arcy Cain" writes:
> On 12-06-22 07:09 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I think DirectionFunctionCall2 is what you want.
> Can you elaborate? I could not find a single hit in Google or the
> documentation search on the PG site and it does not appear anywhere
> in the source distribution.
He meant D
On 12-06-22 07:09 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
I think DirectionFunctionCall2 is what you want.
Can you elaborate? I could not find a single hit in Google or the
documentation search on the PG site and it does not appear anywhere
in the source distribution.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain | Democracy
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:28 PM, D'Arcy Cain wrote:
>> I doubt that an "auto reverse the arguments" facility would be very
>> much cheaper. You could maybe argue that the aggregated maintenance
>> and space costs of all the commutator-pair functions are enough to
>> justify having some such solu
On 12-06-22 11:36 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
"D'Arcy Cain" writes:
The thing is that either of those approaches is hugely more expensive
than just providing a second C function. It costs probably thousands
of cycles to inline that SQL function, each time it's used in a query.
I assumed itwould be mo
"D'Arcy Cain" writes:
> ... The issue here is that the operator is SC but
> the args are different types.
Well, that's a weird way of defining self-commutating, but ...
> It would be nice if there was a way
> to automatically generate code that reverses arguments. Maybe such
> a thing belongs i
On 12-06-22 07:11 AM, Florian Pflug wrote:
On Jun22, 2012, at 06:32 , D'Arcy Cain wrote:
So I have my type working now but I had to create a new C function
that take the opposite argument order. Seems redundant but I could
not see a better way.
There isn't. Postgres itself contains a huge num
On Jun22, 2012, at 06:32 , D'Arcy Cain wrote:
> So I have my type working now but I had to create a new C function
> that take the opposite argument order. Seems redundant but I could
> not see a better way.
There isn't. Postgres itself contains a huge number of such functions,
e.g. for every *lt
On 12-06-22 12:22 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Um, an operator with different types on left and right cannot be its own
commutator.
Understood. I completely misunderstood the purpose of COMMUTATOR. I
thought that it was telling the system that the procedure could be
called with the arguments reversed
"D'Arcy Cain" writes:
> On 12-06-21 12:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Did you actually create a "text = chkpass" function and operator?
>> This declaration merely promises that you will provide one eventually.
>> The system does not have the ability to make one for you.
> I guess I am missing the poin
On 12-06-21 12:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Did you actually create a "text = chkpass" function and operator?
This declaration merely promises that you will provide one eventually.
The system does not have the ability to make one for you.
I guess I am missing the point of COMMUTATOR then. The docs s
On Jun21, 2012, at 17:46 , D'Arcy Cain wrote:
> Maybe I am using it wrong but I get no error message when I use it. I
> have a type called chkpass (a version is in the additional supplied
> modules) and I create the equality operator like this:
>
...
>
> So while it created the operator it didn
"D'Arcy Cain" writes:
> Maybe I am using it wrong but I get no error message when I use it. I
> have a type called chkpass (a version is in the additional supplied
> modules) and I create the equality operator like this:
> CREATE OPERATOR = (
> PROCEDURE = eq,
> LEFTARG = chkpa
Maybe I am using it wrong but I get no error message when I use it. I
have a type called chkpass (a version is in the additional supplied
modules) and I create the equality operator like this:
CREATE OPERATOR = (
PROCEDURE = eq,
LEFTARG = chkpass,
RIGHTARG = text,
17 matches
Mail list logo
