Re: anyarray

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: anyarray
Date: 2015-03-05 03:28:31
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On 2/13/15 10:20 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>> Some of users of intarray contrib module wish to use its features with
>> another kind of arrays, not only for int4 type. Suggested module
>> generalizes intarray over other (not all) types op pgsql.

> I think this module should be merged with the intarray module. Having
> two modules with very similar functionality would be confusing.

Perhaps. I think it would be hard to remove intarray without breaking
things for existing users of it; even if the functionality remains under
another name. And surely we don't want to generalize intarray while
keeping that same name. So it might be hard to get to a clean solution.

Speaking of names, I can't avoid the feeling that it is a seriously bad
idea to name an extension the same thing as an existing core type.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2015-03-05 03:37:08 Re: forward vs backward slashes in msvc build code
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2015-03-05 03:13:28 Re: Add pg_settings.pending_restart column