On Tue, 14 Dec 2010, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>>> On m?n, 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.
>
> Not exactly, because in hstore all the element values have to be,
> specifically, text. Having hstores of other kinds of objects would,
> presumably, be useful.
agree, we already thought about this, but then others got exited to
remove hstore limitations. We, probably, could revive our ideas, so
better now to decide if hstore will be "1st class citizen" in postgres.
>
>> If they are allowed to be different types,
>> what have you got but a record? Surely SQL can do composite types
>> already.
>
> I think I mostly agree with this.
>
>
Regards, Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru),
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
