| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Arrays of Complex Types |
| Date: | 2007-04-09 20:07:16 |
| Message-ID: | 461A9CF4.709@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 10:14:41AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> . defer for the present any consideration of a "CREATE TYPE foo AS ARRAY
>> ..." command.
>>
>
> What is the rationale for allowing people to name the array type. When
> I originally proposed the syntax I presumed that the array name would
> be kept internal and hidden from the user, just that it would exist
> after that command.
>
> What possible reason is there for allowing the user to give the array
> type a name?
>
> Have a nice day,
>
Some type systems have named array types, some don't. I can live happily
with either. Are array types anonymous in the standard?
At any rate, the point of the remark was to take this off the table for now.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-04-09 20:16:10 | Re: UTF8MatchText |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-04-09 19:57:34 | Re: [HACKERS] Arrays of Complex Types |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-04-09 20:16:10 | Re: UTF8MatchText |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2007-04-09 19:57:34 | Re: [HACKERS] Arrays of Complex Types |