| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us (Tom Lane), pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: latest hstore patch |
| Date: | 2009-09-29 23:45:44 |
| Message-ID: | E64FE453-289D-4073-A729-B330B2D43A05@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sep 29, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> I don't feel particularly strongly about the name (I've also
> intentionally held off on updating the pgfoundry version of the code
> until this is settled so no-one else should care either).
I'm down with hstore_to_array() and hstore_to_matrix().
> My own expectation is that the operator should normally be used in
> preference (though obviously people's tastes will vary in this
> respect).
Sure. But I realized that I forgot to ask for array_to_hstore() and
matrix_to_hstore(). :-) Would love to have those, too. Not sure about
the operators…
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2009-09-30 00:00:25 | Re: latest hstore patch |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-09-29 23:22:33 | Re: latest hstore patch |