Re: [HACKERS] problem with arrays

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Massimo Dal Zotto <dz(at)cs(dot)unitn(dot)it>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] problem with arrays
Date: 1999-01-07 02:46:44
Message-ID: 36942014.4B83230A@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Also trying to define the _varchar or _bpchar types fails, so it seems
> that the conversion from 6.2 to 6.4 is not possible for many data
> types. Any suggestion?

That sucks. afaik the only data types affected are the fixed-maximum
with variable-length strings. There was a comment in gram.y from Jolly
regarding the possibility for allowing bpchar and varchar into arrays,
though she explicitly disallowed it. I had thought that this code is
still in effect.

I'm not certain how much you have looked at this, but the leading
underscore is a Postgres convention for array data types. The trick to
allowing bpchar, varchar, and perhaps numeric types into arrays is
passing along the element dimensions. I haven't looked at whether that
already happens.

In the meantime, you can try using the text type instead. I know it
doesn't have an 8-byte maximum length, but it is allowed in arrays...

- Tom

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-01-07 02:50:04 Re: [HACKERS] A small problem with the new inet and cidr types
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1999-01-07 02:36:31 Re: [HACKERS] Re: [PORTS] vacuum takes too long