Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types
Date: 2009-09-09 19:23:52
Message-ID: 5434.1252524232@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> What we need is a system where base types are represented
> by an OID, but derived types (list and functional types) are built up
> using type constructors that take other types as arguments.

This is SQL, not Haskell. What you suggest seems about two orders of
magnitude more complex than real-world applications could justify.

(so where is pl/haskell, anyway?)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-09-09 19:26:07 Re: CTE bug?
Previous Message David Fetter 2009-09-09 19:16:38 Re: CTE bug?