Re: [PATCH] Generic type subscripting

From: Arthur Zakirov <a(dot)zakirov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Generic type subscripting
Date: 2017-04-06 13:24:33
Message-ID: 77f6449a-cc91-fee2-697f-5eacebfca0d7@postgrespro.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 05.04.2017 16:06, Arthur Zakirov wrote:
>
> I'd like to focus on "refevalfunc" and "refnestedfunc" fields as I did
> earlier. I think using Oid type for them is a bad approach. "..._fetch"
> and "..._assign" functions in catalog is unnecessary movement to me.
> User of subscript of his type may think the same. But he won't see the
> code and won't know why he needs these functions.
>
> And so "..._fetch" and "..._assign" functions in catalog is a bad design
> to me. But, of course, it is just my opinion. This approach is the main
> think which we should resolve first, because after commiting the patch
> it will be hard to fix it.
>

I've read olders messages and thread. I see now that this approach was
made with other hackers. I've just been confused when I've been
implementing subscript for ltree.

Sorry if I confused you.

Any opinions about the patch?

--
Arthur Zakirov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
Russian Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2017-04-06 13:25:15 Re: GSoC 2017 Proposal
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2017-04-06 13:11:23 Re: [GSoC] Push-based query executor discussion