| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Florian Pflug <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: hstore ==> and deprecate => |
| Date: | 2010-06-21 17:53:44 |
| Message-ID: | 63A9C9AE-65C6-4EFB-9035-995F5A5A0861@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jun 21, 2010, at 10:46 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I don't much like hstore(hstore, text[]) because it's not strictly a
> constructor. But I could certainly live with something based on the
> word slice. The existing SQL function backing the operator is called
> slice_hstore(), whereas I would probably prefer hstore_slice() or just
> slice(), but I can't talk about it right now because I have to go
> finish laundering the paint out of my entire wardrobe. Having already
> written three patches to rename this operator (to three different
> names), I'm in no hurry to write a fourth unless the degree of
> consensus is sufficient to convince me I shan't need to write a fifth
> one.
That seems wise. :-)
Best,
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-06-21 18:23:17 | Re: deprecating =>, take two |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-06-21 17:49:57 | Re: hstore ==> and deprecate => |