From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Arrays of Complex Types |
Date: | 2007-03-28 17:33:56 |
Message-ID: | 460AA704.2010307@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
>
>
>> The first is in type_sanity, which basically doesn't understand that
>> complex types now have array types associated with them and thinks
>> they're orphan array types, so it's actually the test that's not
>> right.
>>
>
> Hmm, I question the usefulness of automatically creating array types for
> all relation types that are created -- the catalog bloat seems a bit too
> much. An array of pg_autovacuum for example, does that make sense?
>
> I'm not sure what was the reaction to having an "CREATE TYPE foo ARRAY
> OF bar" command of some kind? I think this was discussed but not
> explicitely rejected, or was it?
>
>
It certainly seems rather inconsistent to have array types autocreated
for some types but not others. But unless we create them for all types
then I think we need a command such as you suggest.
How much bloat will this really be? If it's not used it won't get into
the type cache. I find it hard to believe there will be any very
significant performance effect.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-28 17:35:54 | Re: Arrays of Complex Types |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-03-28 17:30:21 | Re: ECPG regression tests expected files |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-28 17:35:54 | Re: Arrays of Complex Types |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-03-28 17:11:05 | Re: Arrays of Complex Types |