Re: [HACKERS] empty concatenate

D'Arcy Cain <darcy@druid.net>

From: "D'Arcy" "J.M." Cain <darcy@druid.net>
To: zakkr@zf.jcu.cz (Karel Zak - Zakkr)
Cc: sszabo@bigpanda.com, pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Date: 1999-12-23T17:47:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Thus spake Karel Zak - Zakkr
>  I not agree with this concept:-). 

You are not alone.

> (My problem is not write query, I know SQL and coalesce()...etc. I want 
> good understand current implementation.)
> 
> ! Why is textcat() (and other) function called if result from this 
> function is ignored, it is bad spending (my CPU is not boredom). See 
> my 'C' example in my first letter...  

This is the issue no matter which side of the debate you are on.  I
think everyone agrees that either the function should not be called
or else the result should be used if it is.  CPU is a terrible thing
to waste.

-- 
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.