Thread: pgsql-server: Some preliminary documentation for composite-type stuff.
pgsql-server: Some preliminary documentation for composite-type stuff.
From
tgl@svr1.postgresql.org (Tom Lane)
Date:
Log Message: ----------- Some preliminary documentation for composite-type stuff. Modified Files: -------------- pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml: array.sgml (r1.34 -> r1.35) (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/array.sgml.diff?r1=1.34&r2=1.35) catalogs.sgml (r2.85 -> r2.86) (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml.diff?r1=2.85&r2=2.86) datatype.sgml (r1.144 -> r1.145) (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/datatype.sgml.diff?r1=1.144&r2=1.145) extend.sgml (r1.27 -> r1.28) (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/extend.sgml.diff?r1=1.27&r2=1.28) filelist.sgml (r1.37 -> r1.38) (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/filelist.sgml.diff?r1=1.37&r2=1.38) syntax.sgml (r1.92 -> r1.93) (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/syntax.sgml.diff?r1=1.92&r2=1.93) Added Files: ----------- pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml: rowtypes.sgml (r2.1) (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/rowtypes.sgml?rev=2.1&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup)
Re: pgsql-server: Some preliminary documentation for composite-type stuff.
From
Alvaro Herrera
Date:
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 01:04:48AM -0300, Tom Lane wrote: > Log Message: > ----------- > Some preliminary documentation for composite-type stuff. *sigh* Hard to keep up with this guy. I'm off a weekend and he's already modified half the source tree. :-D Nice work. This is a cool unexpected step forward in functionality. Thanks. -- Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>) "La conclusión que podemos sacar de esos estudios es que no podemos sacar ninguna conclusión de ellos" (Tanenbaum)
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes: > Nice work. This is a cool unexpected step forward in functionality. As recently as Thursday I didn't think this would get done for 7.5, but I wanted to nibble off a few rough edges, and after a while there weren't any left. Or almost ... I just noticed that there's no convenient way to assign to a subfield in UPDATE. You can hack around it with something like UPDATE mytab SET myfield = ROW(myfield.a, newval, myfield.c) but my goodness that's painful. AFAICS the SQL99 spec gives license to write UPDATE mytab SET myfield.b = newval and I think I will look into making that happen tomorrow. We already have a solution in place for assigning to an array element, and this doesn't seem much different. regards, tom lane