From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | YUriy Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Some questions about the array. |
Date: | 2015-12-09 21:18:03 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZobaYqW6Pr0TNAF1yEr8iXiC2_f9oDU=pjBrhSUtPGoA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 3:01 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 8:46 AM, YUriy Zhuravlev
> <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>> On Tuesday 01 December 2015 08:38:21 you wrote:
>>> it (zero
>>> based indexing support) doesn't meet the standard of necessity for
>>> adding to the core API and as stated it's much to magical.
>>
>> We do not touch the arrays, we simply create a function to access them with a
>> comfortable behavior. Creating a separate array types in the form extension is
>> very difficult IMHO.
>
> Correct; what I'm saying is that we don't need core API support for
> zero based array indexing.
Yes. I think adding new functions that use an indexing convention
inconsistent with the one we're using for everything else ought to be
completely out of the question.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-12-09 21:21:21 | Re: [HACKERS] max_worker_processes on the standby |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-09 21:11:14 | Re: [DOCS] max_worker_processes on the standby |