> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:49:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > I've pushed the core patch now.
Thanks a lot! > The jsonb parts now have to be > rebased onto this design, which I'm assuming Dmitry will tackle Yes, I'm already on it, just couldn't keep up with the changes in this thread. > BTW, while reviewing the thread to write the commit message, > I was reminded of my concerns around the "is it a container" > business. As things stand, if type A has a typelem link to > type B, then the system supposes that A contains B physically; > this has implications for what's allowed in DDL, for example > (cf find_composite_type_dependencies() and other places). > We now have a feature whereby subscripting can yield a type > that is not contained in the source type in that sense. > I'd be happier if the "container" terminology were reserved for > that sort of physical containment, which means that I think a lot > of the commentary around SubscriptingRef is misleading. But I do > not have a better word to suggest offhand. Thoughts? I have only 'a composite'/'a compound' alternative in mind, but it's probably the same confusing as a container.
