Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Mike Fowler <mike(at)mlfowler(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch
Date: 2010-08-06 18:32:33
Message-ID: 7938.1281119553@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> For Tom: proposed syntax can be used generally - everywhere when you
> are working with collection. It can be used for hash (hstore)
> constructor for example. For me is more readable code like

> select hstore(name := 'Tomas', surname := 'Novak')

You've tried to sell us on that before, with few takers. This proposed
use-case impresses me even less than the previous ones, because callers
of xslt_process seem quite likely to need to work with non-constant
parameter names.

In any case, given what we have at the moment for function overload
resolution rules, I think it's a fundamentally bad idea to introduce
a "wild card" function type that would necessarily conflict with
practically every other possible function declaration. So regardless
of what use-cases you propose, I'm going to vote against that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-08-06 18:36:18 Re: including backend ID in relpath of temp rels - updated patch
Previous Message Gordon Shannon 2010-08-06 18:31:10 Surprising dead_tuple_count from pgstattuple