| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Postgresql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: an aggregate array function |
| Date: | 2003-07-29 16:02:46 |
| Message-ID: | 3F269AA6.7090200@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
It's in the SQL99 standard. There's nothing forcing you to use them - I
am a (possibly) old-fashioned data architect, so I never use them ;-)
SQL99 actually allows you to use more or less arbitrary composite types
as columns (although Pg currently doesn't) - many would argue that this
violates first normal form. OTOH there's probably a good case to make
that all this is necessary to provide good support to ObjectRelational
mappings, and other OO stuff.
andrew
Dani Oderbolz wrote:
> I got another question to this:
> why does PostgreSQL support Arrays in the first place?
> For my taste, its a very messy concept...
>
> Regards,
> Dani
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-07-29 16:06:35 | Re: FATAL message on Linux |
| Previous Message | Michael Brusser | 2003-07-29 15:52:49 | FATAL message on Linux |