| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: MULTISET and additional functions for ARRAY |
| Date: | 2010-11-16 22:19:25 |
| Message-ID: | 1289945965.31200.73.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On fre, 2010-11-12 at 09:44 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> But I'm still not convinced that this feature is useful enough to
> justify the implementation effort. AFAICS there's nothing here that
> you couldn't get with some non-default operators on regular arrays,
Unique constraints would behave differently for arrays and multisets.
But I suppose you could get something similar with exclusion constraints
nowadays. But not for primary keys.
Foreign keys also don't work easily with nondefault operators.
JOIN / USING doesn't work.
ORDER BY would work but look ugly. And such coding where you'd have to
remember the nondefault operator everywhere would also be error prone.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-11-16 22:22:02 | Re: unlogged tables |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2010-11-16 22:15:47 | Re: unlogged tables |