Re: multiset patch review - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Itagaki Takahiro
Subject Re: multiset patch review
Date
Msg-id AANLkTi=Z6hBnsTTq3Py_UqwpZP9uzAVL_Mo+OubODKBY@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: multiset patch review  (Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: multiset patch review
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 10:40, Itagaki Takahiro
<itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the word is either "concatenable" or "concatenatable".  Also
>> please don't break up the string in errdetail() even if it's longer than
>> 80 chars.  (The function below this one has this too)
>
> OK, I'll fix them,
> but the broken up messages come from the existing code.

The attached is a fixed version.

BTW, should we use an "operator" to represent SUBMULTISET OF ?
It is mapped to submultiset_of "function" for now.  If GIN and GiST
indexes will support the predicate in the future in addition to <@,
SUBMULTISET OF should be mapped to an operator rather than a function.
We need to choose different operator from <@ and @> for the case
because the semantics are not the same. (ex. <& and &>)

Note that MEMBER OF is represented as "ANY =".

--
Itagaki Takahiro

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Anssi Kääriäinen
Date:
Subject: Re: REVIEW: Extensions support for pg_dump
Next
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: limiting hint bit I/O