"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> The alternative seems to be to forbid uninitialized pad bytes within >>> Datums. That's not very pleasant to contemplate either, since it'll >>> forever be vulnerable to sins of omission. > >> Just brainstorming here, I don't think this is a good solution but perhaps it >> could lead somewhere interesting...
Another thought. Perhaps every data type should define an operator which is a true equals. Ie, it guarantees that *no* internal state that any function could expose is different between two datums. Most data types could implement it just by calling memcmp (or postgres could provide such a definition if it's left undefined). That gives arrays the option of either providing such an operator or guaranteeing no padding bytes and using memcmp. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Get trained by Bruce Momjian - ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostgreSQL training! -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
