Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>
>>During my coding of the per-user/database settings, it occurred to me one
>>more time that arrays are evil. Basically, the initial idea was to have a
>>column pg_database.datconfig that contains, say,
>>'{"geqo_threshold=55","enable_seqscan=off"}'. Just inserting and deleting
>>in arrays is terrible, let alone querying them in a reasonable manner.
>>We're getting killed by this every day in the privileges and groups case.
>>
>
>>What are people's thoughts on where (variable-length) arrays are OK in
>>system catalogs, and where a new system catalog should be created?
>>
>
> Seems like an array is a perfectly fine representation, and what's
> lacking are suitable operators. Maybe we should think about inventing
> some operators, rather than giving up on arrays.
IMHO making arrays and relations equivalent is a real challenge. But
this would give the full power of SQL to arrays (subselects, aggregates, easy insertion, deletion, selection,
updates).
But if you manage to make an array accessible as a relation this would
be a big step for mankind ;-)
(e.g. select * from pg_class.relacl where pg_class.relname='pg_stats';
insert into pg_class.relacl values 'christof=r' where
pg_class.relname='pg_stats';
But at least the second example looks unSQLish to me
(I doubt the syntax "insert ... where" is legal))
Seemed a good idea first ... but I don't know whether it is worth the
(syntactic, planning, non-standard) trouble. Christof Petig
