From: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | YUriy Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Some questions about the array. |
Date: | 2015-11-09 16:55:15 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfdv_zvPEs-6FRXPgenGYA6mWKferbRgg6hKKZYytjdX4NQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> 2015-11-09 14:44 GMT+01:00 YUriy Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>:
>
>> On Monday 09 November 2015 13:50:20 Pavel Stehule wrote:
>> > New symbols increase a complexity of our code and our documentation.
>> >
>> > If some functionality can be implemented via functions without
>> performance
>> > impacts, we should not to create new operators or syntax - mainly for
>> > corner use cases.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> >
>> > Pavel
>>
>> Ok we can use {:} instead [:] for zero array access.
>> The function is the solution half.
>>
>
> It isn't solution. The any syntax/behave change have to have stronger
> motivation. We had so talk about it 20 years ago :(
>
Assuming array[~n] has a current meaning, could we give a try to new syntax
which doesn't have current meaning? Not yet sure what exactly it could be...
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-11-09 16:56:37 | Re: [PATCH] Refactoring of LWLock tranches |
Previous Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2015-11-09 16:54:59 | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |