Hi,

On Jan 26, 2011, at 8:45 PM, Alex Hunsaker wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 15:48, Alex Hunsaker <bada...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 13:04, Alexey Klyukin <al...@commandprompt.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 8:52 PM, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Jan 12, 2011, at 5:14 AM, Alexey Klyukin wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> You mean packing both a string representation and a reference to a single 
>>>>> SV * value?
>>>> 
>>>> Dunno, I'm not a guts guy.
>>> 
>>> Well, neither me (I haven't used much of the guts api there).
>> 
>> Find attached a proof of concept that modifies Alexey's patch to do
>> the above (using the overload example I and others posted).
> [ ... ]
>> Thoughts?  Should I polish this a bit more?  Or do we like the GUC better?
> 
> So its been over a week with no comments. ISTM there were more people
> against adding yet another GUC.  Barring objection ill finish the
> missing parts of the POC patch I posted and submit that.

I've played with that patch just today. I found a problem with it, when I tried 
to use the array in a string context the backend segfaulted with: "WARNING:  
Deep recursion on subroutine "main::encode_array_literal" at -e line 74" just 
before the segfault. I think the problem is in the regexp check in 
'encode_array_literal' (it's obviously reversed comparing with the original 
one), but it still segfaults after I fixed that.

Other than that, the approach looks good to me, I'm for eliminating the GUC 
setting in favor of it.

/A
--
Alexey Klyukin
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.





-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to