| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Raúl Marín Rodríguez <rmrodriguez(at)carto(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pow support for pgbench |
| Date: | 2017-12-05 03:53:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqRM41eZYZT18J52H1WR2HSbwhLvpwOJQm563nZSv0-UTA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> ISTM one key issue here is whether pgbench's expression language is
> meant to model SQL (where we have function overloading) or C (where
> there is no overloading). I don't think we've really settled on a
> fixed policy on that, but maybe now is the time.
abs() is doing that already. Having some rules in the shape of at
least a comment would be nice.
> If we do think that function overloading is OK, there remains the
> question of when the typing is resolved. I think Robert is objecting
> to resolving at runtime, and I tend to agree that that's something
> we'd regret in the long run. It doesn't match either SQL or C.
+1.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-12-05 03:56:16 | Re: [HACKERS] logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-12-05 03:19:10 | Usage of epoch in txid_current |