| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | James William Pye <pgsql(at)jwp(dot)name> |
| Cc: | Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pseudo-type record arguments for PL-functions |
| Date: | 2006-05-07 03:35:15 |
| Message-ID: | 18522.1146972915@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
James William Pye <pgsql(at)jwp(dot)name> writes:
> On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 12:16:16AM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
>> Why are there two ways of representing some of the array types? I mean,
>> why is there an _int4 when you could just as well write int4[]? I'm
>> probably missing the point altogether.
> FWICT, Prefixing a '_' is the convention used to make the array type's typname
> unique. Being able to reference array types as _type is a "side effect".
> (array types being actual rows in pg_type)
There used to be some contexts where you *had* to write _foo instead of
foo[] because the grammar only allowed simple names and not the full
TypeName production. I think we've fixed them all, but very likely
there are places in contrib still following the old convention.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2006-05-07 10:15:23 | Fwd: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Build with Visual Studio & MSVC |
| Previous Message | James William Pye | 2006-05-07 02:27:09 | Re: pseudo-type record arguments for PL-functions |