Re: c language functions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Rodrigo Barboza <rodrigombufrj(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: c language functions
Date: 2013-04-03 21:17:39
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZjyyeR2uq=bFOjtAZpZ3_v83+ot64K_whWNTG=s8LfwQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Rodrigo Barboza <rodrigombufrj(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Well, I was checking inside my function the type of the second argument and
> switching between the allowed types.
> This way kind of does the same thing of many functions, doesn't it?

Sure, except that it will also call your function when someone does
my_int + text or my_int + bytea or my_int + box, which are surely a
lot less sensible. It's probably a good idea to assume that if you
make your type work like the existing types, it's more likely to end
well than if you make it behave completely differently.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2013-04-03 21:21:36 Re: Proposal for Allow postgresql.conf values to be changed via SQL [review]
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2013-04-03 20:45:02 Re: Drastic performance loss in assert-enabled build in HEAD