| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: hstore ==> and deprecate => |
| Date: | 2010-06-15 22:13:00 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimxUsfnfWhXTRw_2zxsraDD6o-Tg1ocvMAJi8mw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Andrew Gierth
<andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> wrote:
> I'm happy with deprecating the first two => in favour of hstore() if
> that is in line with general opinion. The hstore => text[] slice could
> be replaced by another operator name; the existing name comes from the
> analogy that (hstore -> text[]) returns the list of values, whereas
> (hstore => text[]) returns both the keys and values.
So, I kind of like Florian Pflug's suggestion upthread of replacing
hstore => text by hstore & text[]. I think that's about as mnemonic
as we're likely to get, and it gels nicely with the hstore ?& text[]
operator, which tests whether all of the named keys are present in the
hstore.
Does anyone want to bikeshed further before I go do that?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-06-15 22:22:26 | Re: New PGXN Extension site |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-06-15 21:52:47 | Re: New PGXN Extension site |