From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting |
Date: | 2018-01-11 18:37:05 |
Message-ID: | 10983.1515695825@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think you missed the point. The question is whether the existence of a
>> subscripting function means that we need to treat the subscriptable type
>> as physically containing the subscript result type.
> I don't think I missed the point at all -- this is the exact same set
> of issues that arise with respect to functions. Indeed, I gave an
> example of a function that needs to be updated if a column of the
> input type is altered. In the case of functions, we've decided that
> it's not our problem.
Right, but in the case of stored arrays, we've decided that it *is*
our problem (as indeed it must be, because the user has no tools with
which they could fix a representation change for stored data). The
question is to what extent that need would propagate to pseudo array
types.
> In other words, we're vigorously agreeing.
I think we're agreed on what should be in the v1 version of the patch.
I'm not 100% convinced that the problem won't come up eventually.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-01-11 18:41:27 | Re: refactor subscription tests to use PostgresNode's wait_for_catchup |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-01-11 18:35:06 | Re: IndexTupleDSize macro seems redundant |