Re: hstores in pl/python

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dmitriy Igrishin <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org>
Subject: Re: hstores in pl/python
Date: 2010-12-14 17:06:05
Message-ID: AANLkTik0yFyrjORpOA6HaqnhBDb0OYXQzDjpUk5snRDz@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> On mån, 2010-12-13 at 10:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We don't normally invent specialized syntax for a specific datatype.
>>> Not even if it's in core.
>
>> I think the idea would be to make associative arrays a kind of
>> second-order object like arrays, instead of a data type.
>
> I haven't actually figured out what the benefit would be, other than
> buzzword compliance and a chance to invent some random nonstandard
> syntax.  If the element values all have to be the same type, you've
> basically got hstore.

Not exactly, because in hstore all the element values have to be,
specifically, text. Having hstores of other kinds of objects would,
presumably, be useful.

> If they are allowed to be different types,
> what have you got but a record?  Surely SQL can do composite types
> already.

I think I mostly agree with this.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2010-12-14 17:08:19 Re: BufFreelistLock
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2010-12-14 17:05:31 Re: hstores in pl/python