Re: Identifying no-op length coercions

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 11:06 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 10:57:13PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>>> > Sounds good. ?Updated patch attached, incorporating your ideas. ?Before applying
>>> > it, run this command to update the uninvolved pg_proc.h DATA entries:
>>> > ?perl -pi -e 's/PGUID(\s+\d+){4}/$& 0/' src/include/catalog/pg_proc.h
>>>
>>> This doesn't quite apply any more.  I think the pgindent run broke it slightly.
>>
>> Hmm, I just get two one-line offsets when applying it to current master.  Note
>> that you need to run the perl invocation before applying the patch.  Could you
>> provide full output of your `patch' invocation, along with any reject files?
>
> Ah, crap.  You're right.  I didn't follow your directions for how to
> apply the patch.  Sorry.

I think you need to update the comment in simplify_function() to say
that we have three strategies, rather than two. I think it would also
be appropriate to add a longish comment just before the test that
calls protransform, explaining what the charter of that function is
and why the mechanism exists.

Documentation issues aside, I see very little not to like about this.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company