Tom Lane wrote:


I've been thinking of proposing that we add a column to pg_type that
points from a type to its array type (if any), ie the reverse link
from typelem.  If we had that then the parser could follow that to
determine which type is foo[], instead of relying on the _foo naming
convention.

good.


I don't suggest that we stop using the naming convention,
but it would no longer be a hard-and-fast rule, just a convention.
In particular we could rejigger things around the edges to reduce
the name conflict problem.  For instance the rule for forming array type
names could be "prepend _, truncate to less than 64 bytes if necessary,
then substitute numbers at the end if needed to get something unique".
This is not all that different from what we do now to get unique
serial sequence names, for example.

Sounds OK but I'd add something that might make it even more unlikely to generate a name clash.

This would also open the door to supporting
CREATE TYPE foo AS ARRAY OF bar

without having to have any restrictions about the name of foo.
I'd still much rather do things that way for arrays of composites
than invent a ton of pg_type entries that are mostly going to go
unused.

        

ISTM we should either do it all automatically or all manually. If you want user defined names for array types then we can forget name mangling for user defined types and do everything manually.

cheers

andrew



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

               http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Reply via email to