Re: proposal: new polymorphic types - commontype and commontypearray

From: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: new polymorphic types - commontype and commontypearray
Date: 2019-01-30 16:00:07
Message-ID: CAFj8pRCEy0SxmJjvVgOVq7EHR-6DiXR+ZW9jBaCYVjoQgyc1Hw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

po 28. 1. 2019 v 20:47 odesílatel Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
napsal:

> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 7:21 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Anyway I think the names need to be any-something.
>
> To me, that seems unnecessarily rigid. Not a bad idea if we can come
> up with something that is otherwise acceptable. But all of your
> suggestions sound worse than Pavel's proposal, so...
>

I implemented commontypenonarray, and commontyperange types. Now, a SQL
functions are supported too.

The naming is same - I had not a better idea. But it can be changed without
any problems, if somebody come with some more acceptable.

I don't think so the name is too important. The polymorphic types are
important, interesting for extension's developers what is small group of
Postgres users.

And personally, I think so commontype and commontypearray are good enough
for not native speakers like me. But I am opened any variant - I think so
this functionality is interesting
and partially coverage one gap in our implementation of polymorphic types.

Regards

Pavel

> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>

Attachment Content-Type Size
polymorphics-commontype-20190130.patch text/x-patch 67.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2019-01-30 16:08:03 Re: proposal: new polymorphic types - commontype and commontypearray
Previous Message leif 2019-01-30 15:53:51 Fwd: Re: BUG #15589: Due to missing wal, restore ends prematurely and opens database for read/write