Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dmitry Dolgov
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting
Date
Msg-id CA+q6zcUA2VafRppdoR=rouWW4t=80iS=r51Pz121xNNygDNgjg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting  (Arthur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view
> On 20 September 2017 at 17:19, Arthur Zakirov <a.zakirov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> As a conclusion:
> * additional field are needed to pg_type for *_fetch and *_assign functions to solve dependency problem

One last thing that I need to clarify. Initially there was an idea to minimize
changes in `pg_type` - that's why I added only one column there that contains an
OID of main subscripting function (and everything else you should find out
inside it). But I have no objections about adding more columns if everyone is
ok with that. Basically pros and cons (marked as + and -):

one new column in `pg_type`:

* less intrusive (+)
* it's neccessary to make a dependency record between subscripting functions
  explicitly (-)

three new columns in `pg_type`:

* more intrusive (-)
* we can create a dependency record between subscripting functions
  simultaneously with a custom type creation (+)
* custom subscripting code does not need to resolve `fetch` and `assign`
  functions (+)

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] SCRAM in the PG 10 release notes
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Fix bool/int type confusion