Re: multiset patch review
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: multiset patch review |
Дата | |
Msg-id | AANLkTi=_QjKU7L5AXLFVBZXS3H0Fqhtee4S+GJA4V6--@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: multiset patch review (Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: multiset patch review
Re: multiset patch review |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 7:27 AM, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 20:49, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >> I notice that this is adding keywords and syntax support for what is >> basically a PostgreSQL extension (since we certainly can't possibly be >> following the SQL standards given that we're not implementing a new >> datatype. Is that really a good idea? > > As I wrote here, > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-01/msg00829.php > I think we can follow the SQL standard incrementally because we > have function overloads. > > One exception is the result type of collect() aggregate function. > It returns an array for now, but will return a multiset when we > support true multiset data type. So, the plan is to add this now with non-standard semantics and then change the semantics later if and when we implement what the standard requires? That's not something we usually do, and I don't see why it's a better idea in this case than it is in general. It's OK to have non-standard behavior with non-standard syntax, but I think non-standard behavior with standard syntax is something we want to try hard to avoid. I'm in favor of rejecting this patch in its entirety. The functionality looks useful, but once you remove the syntax support, it could just as easily be distributed as a contrib module rather than in core. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: