Titus von Boxberg wrote:
With the following patch it's possible to
- extract all field names of a record into an array
- extract field count of a record
- address a single field of a record with a variable
containing the field name (additional to the usual record.fieldname
notation where the fieldname is hardcoded).
I wonder if this is the right syntax. record%identifier is doing
something fundamentally different from record.identifier, but the syntax
doesn't make that clear. I don't have any concrete suggestions for
improvement, mind you... :)
Test code for the patch can be extracted from an example I put into
plpgsql.sgml
Can you supply some proper regression tests, please? i.e. patch
sql/plpgsql.sql and expected/plpgsql.out in src/test/regress
A few minor comments from skimming the patch:
***************
*** 995,1001 ****
new = palloc(sizeof(PLpgSQL_recfield));
new->dtype = PLPGSQL_DTYPE_RECFIELD;
! new->fieldname = pstrdup(cp[1]);
new->recparentno = ns->itemno;
plpgsql_adddatum((PLpgSQL_datum *) new);
--- 995,1002 ----
new = palloc(sizeof(PLpgSQL_recfield));
new->dtype = PLPGSQL_DTYPE_RECFIELD;
! new->fieldindex.fieldname = strdup(cp[1]);
! new->fieldindex_flag = RECFIELD_USE_FIELDNAME;
new->recparentno = ns->itemno;
plpgsql_adddatum((PLpgSQL_datum *) new);
Should be pstrdup().
***************
*** 1101,1107 ****
new = palloc(sizeof(PLpgSQL_recfield));
new->dtype = PLPGSQL_DTYPE_RECFIELD;
! new->fieldname = pstrdup(cp[2]);
new->recparentno = ns->itemno;
plpgsql_adddatum((PLpgSQL_datum *) new);
--- 1102,1109 ----
new = palloc(sizeof(PLpgSQL_recfield));
new->dtype = PLPGSQL_DTYPE_RECFIELD;
! new->fieldindex.fieldname = strdup(cp[2]);
! new->fieldindex_flag = RECFIELD_USE_FIELDNAME;
new->recparentno = ns->itemno;
plpgsql_adddatum((PLpgSQL_datum *) new);
Ibid.
+ switch (ns1->itemtype)
+ {
+ case PLPGSQL_NSTYPE_REC:
+ {
+ PLpgSQL_recfieldproperties *new;
+
+ new = malloc(sizeof(PLpgSQL_recfieldproperties));
+ new->dtype = PLPGSQL_DTYPE_NRECFIELD;
+ new->recparentno = ns1->itemno;
+ plpgsql_adddatum((PLpgSQL_datum *) new);
+ plpgsql_yylval.scalar = (PLpgSQL_datum *) new;
+ ret = T_SCALAR; /* ??? */
+ break;
Should be palloc().
+ return ret;
+ } /* plpgsql_parse_wordnfields */
The Postgres convention is not to include comments like this.
+ case PLPGSQL_NSTYPE_REC:
+ {
+ PLpgSQL_recfieldproperties *new;
+
+ new = malloc(sizeof(PLpgSQL_recfieldproperties));
+ new->dtype = PLPGSQL_DTYPE_RECFIELDNAMES;
+ new->recparentno = ns1->itemno;
+ plpgsql_adddatum((PLpgSQL_datum *) new);
+ plpgsql_yylval.scalar = (PLpgSQL_datum *) new;
+ ret = T_SCALAR; /* ??? */
+ break;
+ }
Should be palloc().
! /* construct_array copies data; free temp elem
array */
! #if 0
! for ( fc = 0; fc < tfc; ++fc )
! pfree(DatumGetPointer(arrayelems[fc]);
! pfree(arrayelems);
! #endif
Unexplained #if 0 blocks aren't good.
-Neil
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
