Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On mån, 2010-12-13 at 10:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> We don't normally invent specialized syntax for a specific datatype.
>> Not even if it's in core.
> I think the idea would be to make associative arrays a kind of
> second-order object like arrays, instead of a data type.
I haven't actually figured out what the benefit would be, other than
buzzword compliance and a chance to invent some random nonstandard
syntax. If the element values all have to be the same type, you've
basically got hstore. If they are allowed to be different types,
what have you got but a record? Surely SQL can do composite types
already.
regards, tom lane
