| From: | Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Generic type subscripting |
| Date: | 2017-09-17 21:34:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20170917213427.GA4430@arthur.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 12:27:58AM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> spite of what form this step will be. Maybe it's possible to make something
> like `CREATE FUNCTION ... FOR SUBSCRIPTING`, then verify that assign/extract
> functions are presented and notify user if he missed them (but I would
> rather
> not do this unless it's really necessary, since it looks like an overkill).
>
> But I'm open to any suggestions, do you have something in mind?
I have put some thought into it. What about the following syntax?
CREATE SUBSCRIPTING FOR type_name
INITFUNC = subscripting_init_func
FETCHFUNC = subscripting_fetch_func
ASSIGNFUNC = subscripting_assign_func
DROP SUBSCRIPTING FOR type_name
But I am not if the community will like such syntax.
--
Arthur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-09-17 21:38:35 | Re: SQL/JSON in PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-09-17 21:31:33 | Re: Improving DISTINCT with LooseScan node |