Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:55:52AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Why exactly was this thought to be a good idea: >> >>> * A NULL original expression disables use of transform functions while >>> * retaining all other behaviors.
> I did it that way because it looked wrong to pass the same CoerceViaIO node to > transforms of both the input and output functions. Thinking about it again > now, doing so imposes no fundamental problems. Feel welcome to change it. Oh, I see your point --- it's not obvious whether the current transform is meant for the input or the output function. Which is a very good point. In principle the transform function could figure out which end of that it must be, but it would be ugly. However, see my response to Robert: why are we passing the original node to the transform function at all? It would be more useful and easier to work with to pass the function's fully-processed argument list, I believe. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers