| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Mike Fowler <mike(at)mlfowler(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch |
| Date: | 2010-08-06 20:05:26 |
| Message-ID: | 014683DB-6CA7-49E0-A884-98AACB064740@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> That would work too, although I think it might be a bit harder to use
> than one alternating-name-and-value array, at least in some scenarios.
> You'd have to be careful that you got the values in the same order in
> both arrays, which'd be easy to botch.
>
> There might be other use-cases where two separate arrays are easier
> to use, but I'm not seeing one offhand.
Stuff like this makes me wish PostgreSQL had an ordered pair data type. Then you'd just have a function with `variadic ordered pair` as the signature.
I don't suppose anyone has implemented a data type like this…
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-08-06 20:14:09 | Re: including backend ID in relpath of temp rels - updated patch |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-08-06 19:55:05 | Re: Review: Re: [PATCH] Re: [HACKERS] Adding xpath_exists function |