[HACKERS] Detection of nested function calls

2013-10-25 Thread Hugo Mercier
: https://github.com/Oslandia/sfcgal-tests/blob/master/bench/report_serialization_referenced_vs_native.pdf [2] https://github.com/Oslandia/postgis/tree/nested_ref_passing -- Hugo Mercier Oslandia diff --git a/src/backend/executor/execQual.c b/src/backend/executor/execQual.c index 90c2753..56c701f

Re: [HACKERS] Detection of nested function calls

2013-10-25 Thread Hugo Mercier
Le 25/10/2013 14:29, Pavel Stehule a écrit : > Hello > > > 2013/10/25 Hugo Mercier <mailto:hugo.merc...@oslandia.com>>. > > I am quite new to postgresql hacking, so I'm sure there is room for > improvements. But, what about this first proposal ? >

Re: [HACKERS] Detection of nested function calls

2013-10-25 Thread Hugo Mercier
Le 25/10/2013 16:18, Tom Lane a écrit : > Hugo Mercier writes: >> PostGIS functions that manipulate geometries have to unserialize their >> input geometries from the 'flat' varlena representation to their own, >> and serialize the processed geometries back when r

Re: [HACKERS] Detection of nested function calls

2013-10-25 Thread Hugo Mercier
Le 25/10/2013 17:20, Tom Lane a écrit : > Hugo Mercier writes: >> Le 25/10/2013 16:18, Tom Lane a écrit : > How do you tell the difference between > >foo(col1, bar(col2)) >foo(bar(col1), col2) > Still not sure to understand ... I assume foo() takes two

Re: [HACKERS] Detection of nested function calls

2013-10-28 Thread Hugo Mercier
Le 25/10/2013 18:44, Tom Lane a écrit : > Hugo Mercier writes: >> Le 25/10/2013 17:20, Tom Lane a écrit : >>> How do you tell the difference between >>> >>> foo(col1, bar(col2)) >>> foo(bar(col1), col2) > >> Still not sure to understand ...

Re: [HACKERS] Detection of nested function calls

2013-10-28 Thread Hugo Mercier
Le 28/10/2013 09:39, Andres Freund a écrit : > On 2013-10-28 09:13:06 +0100, Hugo Mercier wrote: >> Le 25/10/2013 18:44, Tom Lane a écrit : >>> Hugo Mercier writes: >>>> Le 25/10/2013 17:20, Tom Lane a écrit : >>>>> How do you tell the difference betw