From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: updated WIP: arrays of composites |
Date: | 2007-05-11 20:45:58 |
Message-ID: | 3133.1178916358@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Gregory Stark wrote:
>> BTW, why exactly do we need array types to have names at all?
Because typname is part of the primary key for pg_type ...
>> The only
>> user-visible way to refer to these types is always by foo[] isn't it?
> I think you can use the _foo name, but it would certainly be an odd
> thing to do.
There is *tons* of legacy code that uses _foo, mainly because there was
a time when we didn't support the [] notation in a lot of places where
types can be named. There still are some places, in fact:
regression=# alter type widget[] set schema public;
ERROR: syntax error at or near "["
LINE 1: alter type widget[] set schema public;
^
regression=# alter type _widget set schema public;
ERROR: cannot alter array type widget[]
HINT: You can alter type widget, which will alter the array type as well.
regression=#
That particular one may not need fixed (anymore) but the real problem is
the torches-and-pitchforks session that will ensue if we break legacy
code for no reason beyond cosmetics.
IIRC some of the contrib modules still have instances of _foo in
their SQL scripts.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-11 21:21:13 | Re: updated WIP: arrays of composites |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-05-11 20:34:07 | Re: updated WIP: arrays of composites |