Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Nick Rudnick <joerg(dot)rudnick(at)t-online(dot)de>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [pgsql-general 2011-1-21:] Are there any projects interested in object functionality? (+ rule bases)
Date: 2011-02-01 02:53:01
Message-ID: 14611.1296528781@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> It would help if you were a bit more specific.  Do you mean you want
> to write something like foo.bar(baz) and have that mean call the bar
> method of foo and pass it baz as an argument?

> If so, that'd certainly be possible to implement for purposes of a
> college course, if you're so inclined - after all it's free software -
> but we'd probably not make such a change to core PG, because right now
> that would mean call the function bar in schema baz and pass it foo as
> an argument.  We try not to break people's code to when adding
> nonstandard features.

You would probably have better luck shoehorning in such a feature if the
syntax looked like this:

	(foo).bar(baz)

foo being a value of some type that has methods, and bar being a method
name.  Another possibility is

	foo->bar(baz)

I agree with Robert's opinion that it'd be unlikely the project would
accept such a patch into core, but if you're mainly interested in it
for research purposes that needn't deter you.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fujii MasaoDate: 2011-02-01 03:45:27
Subject: Re: Allowing multiple concurrent base backups
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-02-01 02:40:32
Subject: Re: wildcard search support for pg_trgm

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group