| From: | Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Generic type subscripting |
| Date: | 2017-04-06 13:24:33 |
| Message-ID: | 77f6449a-cc91-fee2-697f-5eacebfca0d7@postgrespro.ru |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 05.04.2017 16:06, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
>
> I'd like to focus on "refevalfunc" and "refnestedfunc" fields as I did
> earlier. I think using Oid type for them is a bad approach. "..._fetch"
> and "..._assign" functions in catalog is unnecessary movement to me.
> User of subscript of his type may think the same. But he won't see the
> code and won't know why he needs these functions.
>
> And so "..._fetch" and "..._assign" functions in catalog is a bad design
> to me. But, of course, it is just my opinion. This approach is the main
> think which we should resolve first, because after commiting the patch
> it will be hard to fix it.
>
I've read olders messages and thread. I see now that this approach was
made with other hackers. I've just been confused when I've been
implementing subscript for ltree.
Sorry if I confused you.
Any opinions about the patch?
--
Arthur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2017-04-06 13:25:15 | Re: GSoC 2017 Proposal |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2017-04-06 13:11:23 | Re: [GSoC] Push-based query executor discussion |