On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:49:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > I've pushed the core patch now. The jsonb parts now have to be > rebased onto this design, which I'm assuming Dmitry will tackle > (I do not intend to). It's not quite clear to me whether we have > a meeting of the minds on what the jsonb functionality should be, > anyway. Alexander seemed to be thinking about offering an option > to let the subscript be a jsonpath, but how would we distinguish > that from a plain-text field name? > > 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?
Would this be something more along the lines of a "dependent type," or is that adding too much baggage? Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
