From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndquadrant(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Event Triggers reduced, v1 |
Date: | 2012-07-03 03:25:12 |
Message-ID: | 9469.1341285912@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Um, doesn't that require nonrectangular arrays?
> Doh. You're right: I keep forgetting that arrays have to be rectangular.
> Any suggestions on a sensible way to represent this?
Are there likely to be enough entries that storage efficiency actually
matters? If not, we could use a 2xN array of {key,allowed_value} pairs,
that is
{{thingy,item1},{thingy,item2},{otherthingy,foo},{otherthingy,bar}}
Or perhaps push these out into a separate table, along the lines
of
oid key allowed_value
and use an oidvector to list the selected values in a trigger entry?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-07-03 03:28:33 | Re: Uh, I change my mind about commit_delay + commit_siblings (sort of) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-07-03 03:18:04 | Re: huge tlb support |