Tarantool discussions archive
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nikita Pettik <korablev@tarantool.org>
To: Mergen Imeev <imeevma@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-discussions@dev.tarantool.org
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-discussions] SQL built-in functions position
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 18:19:13 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200928181913.GD14909@tarantool.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <66362762-8791-bea3-745f-afc1e3eaa199@tarantool.org>

On 27 Sep 18:18, Mergen Imeev wrote:
> Hi all. I have a question that I would like to discuss.
> 
> The question is about SQL built-in functions. At the moment these functions
> are
> partially described in _func and partially in src/box/sql/func.c. I received
> two
> completely different suggestions from my reviewers on what to do with these
> functions:
> 1) Move definitions completely to _func. Remove definitions from func.c.

That's my proposal. It makes name collisions check simple, provides unified
interface to invoke built-in and non-built-in functions, allows to grant
and verify priveleges in the same way and so forth. Built-ins are already
declaraed in _func, so reverting this thing would result in another one
unnecessary schema change and upgrade (so I doubt that implementation would
be somehow 'simpler'). Finally part of functions can turn out to be really
usefull in Lua someday such as date()/time(). So to me the choice is kind
of obvious..

> 2) Move definitions completely to func.c. Remove definitions from _func.
> 
> In the first case, users will be able to see the function definitions. Also,
> in
> the future, we may allow these functions to be called from Lua (although not
> sure if this is necessary). The main idea is 'all functions have the same
> interface'.
> 
> In the second case, the implementation is simpler, and we can more easily
> implement some features, such as "virtual" functions. For users, the
> definition
> can only be seen in the documentation. The main idea is 'SQL built-in
> functions
> are part of SQL'.
> 
> Which of these approaches do you think is more beneficial to us?
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-09-28 18:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-27 15:18 Mergen Imeev
2020-09-27 20:56 ` Peter Gulutzan
2020-09-28 20:07   ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-09-29 19:22     ` Peter Gulutzan
2020-09-28 18:19 ` Nikita Pettik [this message]
2020-09-28 20:07   ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-09-28 20:07 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-10-01 14:46   ` Kirill Yukhin
2020-10-01 21:15     ` Vladislav Shpilevoy
2020-10-02 15:18       ` Mergen Imeev

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200928181913.GD14909@tarantool.org \
    --to=korablev@tarantool.org \
    --cc=imeevma@tarantool.org \
    --cc=tarantool-discussions@dev.tarantool.org \
    --subject='Re: [Tarantool-discussions] SQL built-in functions position' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox