Excerpts from Bruce Momjian's message of mar may 10 16:21:36 -0400 2011: > Darren Duncan wrote: > > To follow-up, an additional feature that would be useful and resembles > > union > > types is the variant where you could declare a union type first and then > > separately other types could declare they are a member of the union. I'm > > talking about loosely what mixins or type-roles or interfaces etc are in > > other > > languages. The most trivial example would be declaring an ENUM-alike first > > and > > then separately declaring the component values where the latter declare > > they are > > part of the ENUM, and this could make it easier to add or change ENUM > > values. > > But keep in mind that this is a distinct concept from what we're otherwise > > talking about as being union types. -- Darren Duncan > > Should this be a TODO item?
The general idea of C-style unions, sure. Mixin-style stuff ... not sure. Seems like it'd be pretty painful. -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
