From: | Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Fernando Nasser <fnasser(at)redhat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Domain Support -- another round |
Date: | 2002-03-21 16:10:08 |
Message-ID: | 3C9A05E0.B39B1A20@fourpalms.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> SQL'99 explicitly forbids it. Please refer to my posting to HACKERS
> for the SQL document reference.
The fact that a standard "forbids" something does not necessarily mean
it is a bad idea, as I'm sure you know. Is there any reason that the
standard forbids using domains inside arrays, other than someone on the
standards committee realized that it would be hard for their company to
implement it? That is, does allowing domains in arrays lead to
inconsistancies or fundamental issues with relational algebra or other
set logic that should keep it out of the next set of standards?
If Postgres was developed to only the current standard, it would never
have been written. And since the start of the open source days, if we
had worked solely to get it to conform to the current standard we'd be
starting at ground zero for implementing SQL99, since many of our
features now appear in that standard. Someone cheated and looked at what
we could already do... ;)
- Thomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-03-21 16:19:14 | Re: Function call crashes server |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2002-03-21 15:42:18 | Re: [PATCHES] Domain Support -- another round |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fernando Nasser | 2002-03-21 16:22:57 | Re: Domain Support -- another round |
Previous Message | Ferdinand Smit | 2002-03-21 15:53:30 | Re: pg_dump and transactions |