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

Re: [HACKERS] Data type removal

From: <geek+(at)cmu(dot)edu>
To: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Data type removal
Date: 1998-03-24 16:37:00
Message-ID: emacs-smtp-20243-13591-57644-936428@export.andrew.cmu.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Speaking of data type removal, I was wondering if there were a better
way to handle arrays of types.  From looking in the catalog, it
appears that for each type, there is also declared a similar type,
which is the array version.  It seems that arrays should be considered
more flags on a field, than a field type in themselves.  Does this
make sense to anybody else?

- -- 
=====================================================================
| JAVA must have been developed in the wilds of West Virginia.      |
| After all, why else would it support only single inheritance??    |
=====================================================================
| Finger geek(at)andrew(dot)cmu(dot)edu for my public key.                     |
=====================================================================

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBNRfhLIdzVnzma+gdAQGUvwH8CWMmMo633do81jgZd+pPPJPW481nfwB9
awec8H9PjZ3QsShK4cSIJmC9Yg+IMBp3E+goHYssAO4X42Nf15+0EA==
=8YSU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: The Hermit HackerDate: 1998-03-24 16:38:54
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] char types gone.
Previous:From: Darren KingDate: 1998-03-24 16:11:02
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Data type removal

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