| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: VARIANT / ANYTYPE datatype |
| Date: | 2011-05-10 20:31:39 |
| Message-ID: | 1305059443-sup-7969@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar may 10 16:21:36 -0400 2011:
> Darren Duncan wrote:
> > To follow-up, an additional feature that would be useful and resembles union
> > types is the variant where you could declare a union type first and then
> > separately other types could declare they are a member of the union. I'm
> > talking about loosely what mixins or type-roles or interfaces etc are in other
> > languages. The most trivial example would be declaring an ENUM-alike first and
> > then separately declaring the component values where the latter declare they are
> > part of the ENUM, and this could make it easier to add or change ENUM values.
> > But keep in mind that this is a distinct concept from what we're otherwise
> > talking about as being union types. -- Darren Duncan
>
> Should this be a TODO item?
The general idea of C-style unions, sure. Mixin-style stuff ... not sure.
Seems like it'd be pretty painful.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Darren Duncan | 2011-05-10 21:19:32 | Re: VARIANT / ANYTYPE datatype |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-05-10 20:21:36 | Re: VARIANT / ANYTYPE datatype |