From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | 陈天舟 <tianzhouchen(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Protocol buffer support for Postgres |
Date: | 2016-04-26 13:40:53 |
Message-ID: | 26733.1461678053@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 26 April 2016 at 14:06, <tianzhouchen(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> (1) Since each protocol buffer column requires a schema. I am not sure
>> where is the best place to store that schema info. Should it be in a
>> CONSTRAINT (but I am not able to find the doc referring any custom
>> constraint), or should it be in the COMMENT or somewhere else?
> I can't really imagine how you'd do that without adding a new catalog like
> we have for enum members. A typmod isn't sufficient since you need a whole
> lot more than an integer, and typmods aren't tracked throughout the server
> that well.
> That'll make it hard to do it with an extension.
PostGIS manages to reference quite a lot of schema-like information via
a geometry column's typmod. Maybe there's a reason why their approach
wouldn't be a good fit for this, but it'd be worth investigating.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paul Ramsey | 2016-04-26 14:06:38 | Re: Protocol buffer support for Postgres |
Previous Message | Nikolay Shaplov | 2016-04-26 13:17:16 | [PATCH] amroutine->amsupport from numeric to defined constants |