From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Brown <kevin(at)sysexperts(dot)com> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SQL99 ARRAY support proposal |
Date: | 2003-03-24 18:14:29 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0303241114120.23224-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Sun, 23 Mar 2003, Kevin Brown wrote:
> Joe Conway wrote:
> > Jason Earl wrote:
> > >>Actually, I think it was someone else (Joe???) that is doing the leg
> > >>work, and he was the one choosing explode / implode and getting
> > >>gruff for it, so I was just stepping in and defending his decision.
> > >
> > >Oops, my bad. My brain must already think that it is the weekend. My
> > >reasoning still stands, though. Whoever writes the code gets to pick
> > >the names (assuming, of course, that they can get them past the rest
> > >of the PostgreSQL hackers).
> >
> > <dons flame proof suit>
> > Yup, that was me. I was watching from the sidelines ;-)
> >
> > I'll get on with coding and try to consider all of the input when it
> > comes to picking the names. In the end, it will depend on whatever the
> > guys with commit access will live with, so I'm not going to worry about
> > it too much.
> > </dons flame proof suit>
>
> My 2 cents:
>
> Use "split" and "merge". Avoids the "join" issue and avoids the
> "implode/explode" issue too. :-)
Isn't merge a new SQL keyword in SQL99 or SQL03?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-03-24 18:17:12 | Re: IO scheduler vs PostgreSQL performance measurement |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2003-03-24 18:14:15 | 7.4devel auth failed |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joe Conway | 2003-03-24 18:57:50 | Re: SQL99 ARRAY support proposal |
Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-03-24 04:47:43 | Doc patch for func.sgml (resend) |