From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 13:36:29 |
Message-ID: | 54F85BDD.8010305@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/04/2015 10:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
>
>
+1. We have far too much experience already of this type of naming
confusion.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2015-03-05 14:42:08 | Re: Providing catalog view to pg_hba.conf file - Patch submission |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-03-05 13:28:01 | Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes |