| From: | Karsten Hilbert <Karsten(dot)Hilbert(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Has there been any discussion of custom dictionaries being defined in the database? |
| Date: | 2019-10-17 10:16:52 |
| Message-ID: | 20191017101652.GH7534@hermes.hilbert.loc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 11:52:39AM +0200, Tom Lane wrote:
> Morris de Oryx <morrisdeoryx(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Given that Amazon is bragging this week about turning off Oracle, it seems
> > like they could kick some resources towards contributing something to the
> > Postgres project. With that in mind, is the idea of defining dictionaries
> > within a table somehow meritless, or unexpectedly difficult?
>
> Well, it'd just be totally different. I don't think anybody cares to
> provide two separate definitions of common dictionaries (which'd have to
> somehow be kept in sync).
Might crafty use of server side
COPY TO ... PROGRAM ...
enable OP to drop in dictionary data files as needed ?
Karsten
--
GPG 40BE 5B0E C98E 1713 AFA6 5BC0 3BEA AC80 7D4F C89B
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2019-10-17 10:18:42 | Re: pgbackrest with PAF(corosync and pacmaker) |
| Previous Message | PegoraroF10 | 2019-10-17 10:13:08 | Re: Changing PK on replicated database |