| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: int2[] vs int2vector in pg_catalog? |
| Date: | 2004-03-29 20:23:34 |
| Message-ID: | 4246.1080591814@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
> I'm wondering for the rationnal of the types used in various tables in
> pg_catalog (v 7.4.2) so as to represent the very same thing:
History and backwards compatibility, mostly.
From the standpoint of the backend I don't think there is any
fundamental reason why we couldn't change pg_index.indkey and indclass
into varlena arrays, but I'd be worried about breaking existing
client-side code that looks at those columns. In particular the
question of whether indexing starts at 0 or 1 would be nasty.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2004-03-29 20:37:07 | Re: [HACKERS] Dates BC. |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2004-03-29 19:57:28 | Re: Increasing security in a shared environment ... |