| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Rikard Pavelic" <rikard(dot)pavelic(at)zg(dot)htnet(dot)hr> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #5982: recursive type crashes postgres |
| Date: | 2011-04-15 21:27:59 |
| Message-ID: | 4DA8720F020000250003C8D5@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> There are lots of use cases for this. I use composite types to
> marshal data to the client all the time, and recursive structures
> are fairly common in many classic problems. Recursive composites
> fit the bill perfectly.
I'm trying to get my head around why SQL composite types are a good
way to marshal complex object graphs with recursion. I can see
where it could be done, I'm still not convinced that it's better
than SQL passing out data in tabular form with relationship
established by matching values. In other words, when is it a good
idea to do the relation to object mapping in the database engine?
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2011-04-15 21:56:50 | Re: BUG #5982: recursive type crashes postgres |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-04-15 21:27:22 | Re: Re[2]: BUG #5977: Crash on delete |