From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: array support patch phase 1 patch |
Date: | 2003-04-08 14:01:37 |
Message-ID: | 26491.1049810497@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Joe Conway writes:
>> ...etc up to 6 dimensions
> Why only 6?
See uses of MAXDIM. If you feel that 6 isn't enough, I wouldn't have
a problem with raising MAXDIM to 10 or so. I don't think it's worth
trying to eliminate the limit completely; that would add palloc overhead
to every array operation, for a feature people are unlikely to use.
>> 4. Duplicated contrib/array functionality (and then some) in the
>> backend using polymorphic functions and operators.
> Couldn't this kind of operation be handled more cleanly (at least
> semantically speaking), if we provide a function that converts an array to
> a set and then use standard set searching operations? For example,
> SELECT 2 IN TABLE(ARRAY[1,2,3]);
Not sure about that. Is there any guidance in the SQL 200x spec about
what they expect people to actually *do* with the ARRAY[] syntax?
I'm currently working over the patch, but am not going to commit this
part (yet), since I have some problems with the implementation anyway.
>> 5. Side note: I added ANYARRAY1 and ANYELEMENT1 in this version.
> Doing what?
I'm hoping to avoid committing those, as they don't seem to be
completely implemented in this patch. They may be required to
represent the behavior of array_coerce() though. Not sure yet.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2003-04-08 16:19:13 | Re: array support patch phase 1 patch |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2003-04-08 13:55:44 | Re: array support patch phase 1 patch |