| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
| Date: | 2020-04-19 10:29:30 |
| Message-ID: | 0b5b8b57-a46c-1d08-4448-f9fbb75c4887@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-04-13 22:33, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe we're just trying to shoehorn too much information into a single
>> table.
> Yeah, back at the beginning of this exercise, Alvaro wondered aloud
> if we should go to something other than tables altogether. I dunno
> what that'd look like though.
Yeah, after reading all this, my conclusion is also, probably tables are
not the right solution.
A variablelist/definition list would be the next thing to try in my mind.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2020-04-19 10:36:17 | Re: Poll: are people okay with function/operator table redesign? |
| Previous Message | Juan José Santamaría Flecha | 2020-04-19 10:16:32 | Re: PG compilation error with Visual Studio 2015/2017/2019 |