| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Patches \(PostgreSQL\)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: updated WIP: arrays of composites |
| Date: | 2007-05-11 18:57:48 |
| Message-ID: | 878xbv89xv.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> * I'm a bit concerned about dump order. If a user wants to create
> types named "foo" and "_foo", he can, but it will only work if he
> makes "_foo" first --- else the derived type for foo is in the way.
> Since pg_dump has no clue about that constraint, it might easily
> dump "foo" first leading to an unrestorable dump. The most usable
> solution would be to auto-rename previously created array types,
> but I dunno how implementable that would be.
BTW, why exactly do we need array types to have names at all? The only
user-visible way to refer to these types is always by foo[] isn't it?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-05-11 20:19:51 | Re: [PATCHES] Arrays of Complex Types |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-11 18:27:49 | Re: [PATCHES] Arrays of Complex Types |