On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:59 AM, Lukas Eder <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, I guess the SETOF BIGINT vs BIGINT[] types really help distinguish the > intent of how a resulting collection should be used by the consumer. OTOH, I > may just have never really understood why the SQL standard (and PostgreSQL) > included arrays in the first place. Nested tables seem much more idiomatic > for (not-so-) every day SQL.
Using sets with a technology that borrows from set theory kind of makes sense, doesn't it :-) That said, I'm experienced enough not to pretend that I actually understand the type system. For example, I have a function that takes VARCHAR(20)[] as an input parameter. I wonder if I could use SETOF VARCHAR(20) instead? My naive guess would be that this would break a bunch of proc calling conventions from various different platforms and languages, but this is just pure speculation. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jOOQ User Group" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
