From: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr(dot)shulgin(at)zalando(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting |
Date: | 2020-12-10 16:15:12 |
Message-ID: | 20201210161511.GA13234@fetter.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:49:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've pushed the core patch now. The jsonb parts now have to be
> rebased onto this design, which I'm assuming Dmitry will tackle
> (I do not intend to). It's not quite clear to me whether we have
> a meeting of the minds on what the jsonb functionality should be,
> anyway. Alexander seemed to be thinking about offering an option
> to let the subscript be a jsonpath, but how would we distinguish
> that from a plain-text field name?
>
> BTW, while reviewing the thread to write the commit message,
> I was reminded of my concerns around the "is it a container"
> business. As things stand, if type A has a typelem link to
> type B, then the system supposes that A contains B physically;
> this has implications for what's allowed in DDL, for example
> (cf find_composite_type_dependencies() and other places).
> We now have a feature whereby subscripting can yield a type
> that is not contained in the source type in that sense.
> I'd be happier if the "container" terminology were reserved for
> that sort of physical containment, which means that I think a lot
> of the commentary around SubscriptingRef is misleading. But I do
> not have a better word to suggest offhand. Thoughts?
Would this be something more along the lines of a "dependent type," or
is that adding too much baggage?
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2020-12-10 16:44:03 | Re: Hybrid Hash/Nested Loop joins and caching results from subplans |
Previous Message | Jim Finnerty | 2020-12-10 16:07:22 | Re: Challenges preventing us moving to 64 bit transaction id (XID)? |