From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Missing array support |
Date: | 2003-07-01 02:15:29 |
Message-ID: | 3F00EEC1.8080408@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
>
>>So array[] should produce '{}' of (an array) type determined by the
>>context? OK -- seems easy enough.
>
> Is it? I think we'd decided that this could only reasonably be handled
> by creating a datatype representing array-of-UNKNOWN. I'm afraid to do
> that because I think it might allow the parser's type resolution
> algorithms to follow paths we will not like. Perhaps it can be made to
> work, but I think it will require some careful study.
I took a closer look -- yeah, without array-of-UNKNOWN I don't think we
can make this work.
I got something working by forcing the element type to UNKNOWN when the
elements list is empty in transformExpr(), but then select_common_type()
turns around and turns UNKNOWN into TEXT, so you wind up with an empty
text[].
I won't bother sending that patch in because I *know* it will get
rejected ;-)
I guess we should put array-of-UNKNOWN on the list of things to look at
for 7.5.
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2003-07-01 02:32:44 | Re: Missing array support |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-07-01 02:01:52 | Re: INDEX_MAX_KEYS to 64? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2003-07-01 02:32:44 | Re: Missing array support |
Previous Message | Jon Jensen | 2003-07-01 01:10:08 | Typo in backend/libpq/be-secure.c |