Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting
От | Arthur Zakirov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 77f6449a-cc91-fee2-697f-5eacebfca0d7@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting (Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 05.04.2017 16:06, Arthur Zakirov wrote: > > I'd like to focus on "refevalfunc" and "refnestedfunc" fields as I did > earlier. I think using Oid type for them is a bad approach. "..._fetch" > and "..._assign" functions in catalog is unnecessary movement to me. > User of subscript of his type may think the same. But he won't see the > code and won't know why he needs these functions. > > And so "..._fetch" and "..._assign" functions in catalog is a bad design > to me. But, of course, it is just my opinion. This approach is the main > think which we should resolve first, because after commiting the patch > it will be hard to fix it. > I've read olders messages and thread. I see now that this approach was made with other hackers. I've just been confused when I've been implementing subscript for ltree. Sorry if I confused you. Any opinions about the patch? -- Arthur Zakirov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com Russian Postgres Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: