Re: anyarray

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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



In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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