|From:||Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>|
|To:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|Cc:||Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 3/4/15 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.
Maybe we could have the anyarray module (name TBD) install two
extensions: one of its own, and one that is named intarray that just
pulls anyarray in as a dependency.
There are more fundamental questions to be answered about the
functionality of this proposal first, however.
|Next Message||Jim Nasby||2015-03-06 03:09:39||Re: Weirdly pesimistic estimates in optimizer|
|Previous Message||Jim Nasby||2015-03-06 02:21:06||Re: Configurable location for extension .control files|