| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Missing array support |
| Date: | 2003-06-28 04:10:53 |
| Message-ID: | 15531.1056773453@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> So array[] should produce '{}' of (an array) type determined by the
> context? OK -- seems easy enough.
Is it? I think we'd decided that this could only reasonably be handled
by creating a datatype representing array-of-UNKNOWN. I'm afraid to do
that because I think it might allow the parser's type resolution
algorithms to follow paths we will not like. Perhaps it can be made to
work, but I think it will require some careful study.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2003-06-28 04:27:29 | Re: Missing array support |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-06-28 03:32:22 | Re: Missing array support |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2003-06-28 04:27:29 | Re: Missing array support |
| Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2003-06-28 03:32:22 | Re: Missing array support |