| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: updated WIP: arrays of composites |
| Date: | 2007-05-10 20:16:49 |
| Message-ID: | 46437DB1.9060806@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> The attached version removes all the places we had NAMEDATALEN - 2
>> restrictions on object names. If there's no objection I will commit this
>> shortly, as I think it now does all the previously agreed things.
>>
>
> It needs some work yet, but I'll go over it and commit it.
>
> BTW, just idly looking at this, I'm wondering whether we couldn't
> now support arrays of domains too. If record_in/record_out work for
> array elements, why wouldn't domain_in/domain_out?
>
>
>
Good question. I'm all in favor of doing that. Presumably we would not
in the case of a domain of an array type?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | William Lawrance | 2007-05-10 21:54:39 | Re: ECPG patch to use prepare for improved performance |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-05-10 19:29:38 | Re: updated WIP: arrays of composites |