Re: [HACKERS] _text problem in union

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Zakkr <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] _text problem in union
Date: 1999-09-28 01:32:39
Message-ID: 37F01AB7.EAD26F10@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> > It woulf be better to have a generic array compare op, that just
> > traverses both arrays comparing them with the "<" for base type
> Yes, that was my idea. Is this a worthy TODO item?

Sure. There should be a fairly large list of things for arrays, which
have not quite gotten the same attention as other Postgres features.

- Thomas

--
Thomas Lockhart lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu
South Pasadena, California

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-09-28 01:38:28 Re: [HACKERS] _text problem in union
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 1999-09-28 01:21:15 Re: [HACKERS] vacuum process size