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

Re: Review: [PL/pgSQL] %TYPE and array declaration - second patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Wojciech Muła <wojciech_mula(at)poczta(dot)onet(dot)pl>
Subject: Re: Review: [PL/pgSQL] %TYPE and array declaration - second patch
Date: 2011-10-28 17:06:15
Message-ID: 25878.1319821575@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> this is just small note about length of this patch. This patch was
> significantly smaller then he solved problem with derivate types for
> compound types - it should to solve problem described in this thread

> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7634704/declare-variable-of-composite-type-in-postgresql-using-type

Well, I think what that example shows is that there's a good reason for
plpgsql_parse_wordtype and plpgsql_parse_cwordtype to handle the
PLPGSQL_NSTYPE_ROW case, which they could do based on the tdtypeid from
the row's tupdesc.  Still isn't going to run to anything like 500 lines
of new code, nor justify a grammar rewrite that risks introducing new
bugs.  The existing code doesn't need to special-case type names that
are also plpgsql keywords, and I'd just as soon not introduce an
assumption that there's no overlap there.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-10-28 17:24:31
Subject: Re: ecpg-related build failure with make 3.82
Previous:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2011-10-28 16:33:39
Subject: Re: Add socket dir to pg_config..?

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