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
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 |