Re: multiset patch review

From: Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)fr>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: multiset patch review
Date: 2011-02-04 19:24:33
Message-ID: m2mxmb38ni.fsf@2ndQuadrant.fr
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Itagaki Takahiro
> <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Multisets. But I chose the same function name and syntax because
>> arrays *are* multisets by definition.
>
> In math class, maybe. But in programming, no. Multiset is a
> datatype. Array is a different datatype. There is no reason why we
> need to clutter our parser with extra keywords to support a
> non-standard feature extension.

My understanding is that we will have to have those functions defined
and user visible, and that we benefit from function overloading which is
not in the standard. So there's no reason not to provide those function
for arrays already, then extend to full multiset support.

Given PostgreSQL overloading, yes, arrays are multisets as far as
defining those standard compliant APIs is concerned. AFAIUI.

Regards,
--
Dimitri Fontaine
http://2ndQuadrant.fr PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2011-02-04 19:25:47 Re: Use a separate pg_depend.deptype for extension membership?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-02-04 19:08:32 Use a separate pg_depend.deptype for extension membership?