From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Chris Travers" <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Bug and/or feature? Complex data types in tables... |
Date: | 2004-01-15 09:18:59 |
Message-ID: | DA36B099-473B-11D8-9C78-000A95C88220@myrealbox.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Hi Tom
On Jan 3, 2004, at 2:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> The thing we are missing (i.e., what makes it crash) is an internal
> representation that allows a tuple to be embedded as a field of a
> larger
> tuple. I've looked at this a couple of times, and each time concluded
> that it was more work than I could afford to spend at the moment. The
> support-such-as-it-is for tuple return values uses a structure that has
> embedded pointers, and it doesn't make any effort to get rid of
> out-of-line TOAST pointers within the tuple. Neither one of those
> things are acceptable for a tuple that's trying to act like a Datum.
Would you mind explaining this a little more, or pointing me to where I
can learn more about this? I looked through the html docs for TOAST,
and only found a brief mention regarding large objects and user-defined
types, but it doesn't get into it in very much detail. (Well, there's
the sliced bread index entry, also. :)
Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2004-01-15 09:23:10 | Re: Bug and/or feature? Complex data types in tables... |
Previous Message | Nick Barr | 2004-01-15 09:05:35 | Re: Using regular expressions in LIKE |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2004-01-15 09:23:10 | Re: Bug and/or feature? Complex data types in tables... |
Previous Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2004-01-15 08:58:16 | Re: Bug and/or feature? Complex data types in tables... |