From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Received: from smtpng1.m.smailru.net (smtpng1.m.smailru.net [94.100.181.251])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256
 bits)) (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83FE544643B
 for <tarantool-discussions@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Mon, 28 Sep 2020 23:07:53 +0300 (MSK)
References: <66362762-8791-bea3-745f-afc1e3eaa199@tarantool.org>
 <20200928181913.GD14909@tarantool.org>
From: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Message-ID: <85c30425-ae7f-b485-4be5-dcad0b1c1cb6@tarantool.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2020 22:07:50 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200928181913.GD14909@tarantool.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-discussions] SQL built-in functions position
List-Id: Tarantool development process
 <tarantool-discussions.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-discussions>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-discussions-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-discussions/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-discussions@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-discussions-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-discussions>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-discussions-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Nikita Pettik <korablev@tarantool.org>, Mergen Imeev <imeevma@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-discussions@dev.tarantool.org

Hi!

See my response in another email with 4 big reasons why
storage of SQL-specific functions in _func is a bad idea.

Also see responses on your comments in separate sections.
I leave references below.

On 28.09.2020 20:19, Nikita Pettik wrote:
> 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,

See "## Built-in functions prevent duplicates in _func?".

> provides unified interface to invoke built-in and non-built-in functions,

See "## Storage in _func unifies functions?".

> allows to grant and verify priveleges in the same way and so forth.

See "## Built-in functions require privileges?".

> 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').

See "## Storage in _func does not change _func schema and documentation?".

> Finally part of functions can turn out to be really
> usefull in Lua someday such as date()/time().

See "## Reuse SQL functions in Lua and other languages?".

> So to me the choice is kind
> of obvious..

It still is not to me.