From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 6B05824FA2 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 04:44:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ykfE4SHYhf_m for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 04:44:59 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp33.i.mail.ru (smtp33.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.93]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTPS id 2994724E40 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 04:44:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:44:56 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Subject: [tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] sql: introduce a signature_mask for functions Message-ID: <20190813084456.GB5284@atlas> References: <6f6689986b1dd79adc478c5da9f1d458da42d483.1565275469.git.kshcherbatov@tarantool.org> <20190812220427.GS32337@atlas> <8e019e9c-0845-d8c9-a1a7-ce8b7047b0ef@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8e019e9c-0845-d8c9-a1a7-ce8b7047b0ef@tarantool.org> Sender: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: tarantool-patches-bounce@freelists.org Reply-To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: tarantool-patches List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-post: List-Archive: To: Kirill Shcherbatov Cc: Tarantool MailList , Nikita Pettik * Kirill Shcherbatov [19/08/13 11:32]: > > Good idea, but why make the mask sooo big?-))) > > I don't think we have more than 3 arguments in any overloaded > > function? > 63 arguments is not too much for UDF (this would use for UDF too), I guess. > Moreover, column_mask API is worked with 64bit bitmasks. When do you plan to use it for UDFs? I'm not aware of any work in the pipeline. If it is in 3-6 months or more, then this is clearly an overkill, as it may never happen > > > > >> + if (!column_mask_fieldno_is_set(p->signature_mask, (uint32_t)nArg)) > >> return 0; > > > > Are you sure you want to use column mask api just to test a bit? > It is convenient, because column_mask is "smart" and it also return true for > fieldno > 64: this is ok for uniform scalar functions like > GREATEST(1,.......) In absence of UDFs you can static-assert that the number of used bits never goes above 8, and you will never need the smart features of the column mask. -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia