Re: pseudo-type record arguments for PL-functions

From: James William Pye <pgsql(at)jwp(dot)name>
To: Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pseudo-type record arguments for PL-functions
Date: 2006-05-07 02:27:09
Message-ID: 20060507022709.GB18059@lit.jwp.name
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 12:16:16AM +0200, Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Yes, the intarray stuff was very helpful but also somewhat confusing.
> Why are there two ways of representing some of the array types? I mean,
> why is there an _int4 when you could just as well write int4[]? I'm
> probably missing the point altogether.

FWICT, Prefixing a '_' is the convention used to make the array type's typname
unique. Being able to reference array types as _type is a "side effect".
(array types being actual rows in pg_type)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2006-05-07 03:35:15 Re: pseudo-type record arguments for PL-functions
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-05-07 02:19:39 Re: bug? non working casts for domain