| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter van Hardenberg <pvh(at)pvh(dot)ca>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: GSoC 2017 |
| Date: | 2017-01-17 02:43:34 |
| Message-ID: | 0353e30e-3254-6ec4-a832-9ca3215b00b2@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/13/17 3:09 PM, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
> A new data type, and/or a new index type could both be nicely scoped
> bits of work.
Did you have any particular data/index types in mind?
Personally I'd love something that worked like a python dictionary, but
I'm not sure how that'd work without essentially supporting a variant
data type. I've got code for a variant type[1], and I don't think
there's any holes in it, but the casting semantics are rather ugly. IIRC
that problem appeared to be solvable if there was a hook in the current
casting code right before Postgres threw in the towel and said a cast
was impossible.
1: https://github.com/BlueTreble/variant/
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-01-17 03:30:15 | Re: PoC: Grouped base relation |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2017-01-17 02:39:06 | Re: GSoC 2017 |