| From: | Chris <chris(at)bitmead(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-sql(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2000-02-03 10:46:45 |
| Message-ID: | 38995C95.38897035@bitmead.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-sql |
Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Maybe SELECT ** FROM BASE would be more flexible as it leaves the standard
> SQL with its "standard" meaning ?
That was my first thought and it's definitely a possibility. My argument
against it is that SQL doesn't have a "standard meaning" in the case of
inheritance, and ** is an incompatibility with OQL.
I suspect we need both. Something like
SET GET_INHERITED_COLUMNS true; etc.
> We will have to change the API sometime not too distant anyway, the current
> api is unable to deal with anything that does not have a nice textual
> representation (like an image or sound) in spite of all the talks about
> easy extensibility - the extensibility is all in the backend, ther is no
> easy way to get new datatypes in/out.
What about PQbinaryTuples() and friends?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-02-03 12:09:18 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-02-03 10:31:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2000-02-03 10:53:18 | Re: [HACKERS] SELECT FOR UPDATE leaks relation refcounts |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-02-03 10:31:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-02-03 12:09:18 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-02-03 10:31:23 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: [SQL] Proposed Changes to PostgreSQL |