On tis, 2010-10-26 at 11:53 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > Case #2 is the strange one, I think. It's not actually just an > adaptation of #1. #1 requires that all elements of the array have a > corresponding PK value; but #2 just requires that one of them does. > Peter, can you clarify case #2? Did you have a use case in mind?
[ That's the period references timestamp case. ] You're right, it's probably not useful. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
