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
