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

Re: Domain Support -- another round

From: Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
To: Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com>
Cc: Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org,Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Domain Support -- another round
Date: 2002-03-21 17:02:28
Message-ID: 3C9A1224.4F655F@fourpalms.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
...
> So, although I agree with you in principle, I believe that in these
> cases we should stick to the standard and avoid gratuitous extensions.

Hmm. In any case, supporting arrays (esp. if it is not allowed in the
standard) should not be a requirement for implementing the DOMAIN
functionality. No point in arguing principles on just, uh, principles,
when we could actually be getting something good done ;)

                    - Thomas

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Fernando NasserDate: 2002-03-21 17:04:54
Subject: Re: Domain Support -- another round
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2002-03-21 17:02:13
Subject: Re: Problem with reloading groups in pg_hba.conf

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Fernando NasserDate: 2002-03-21 17:04:54
Subject: Re: Domain Support -- another round
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2002-03-21 16:58:53
Subject: Re: pg_dump and transactions

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