I wrote:
> Anyway, PFA an updated patch that also fixes some conflicts with the
> already-committed arrays-of-domains patch.
I realized that the pending patch for jsonb_build_object doesn't
actually have any conflict with what I needed to touch here, so
I went ahead and fixed the JSON functions
I wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On 09/28/2017 01:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I do think that treating a function returning a domain-over-composite
differently from one returning a base composite is a POLA. We'd be very
hard put to explain the reasons
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 09/28/2017 01:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I do think that treating a function returning a domain-over-composite
>>> differently from one returning a base composite is a POLA. We'd be very
>>> hard put to explain the reasons for it to an
On 09/28/2017 01:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> I do think that treating a function returning a domain-over-composite
>> differently from one returning a base composite is a POLA. We'd be very
>> hard put to explain the reasons for it to an end user.
> Do you have any thoughts about how we ought to
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 07/13/2017 03:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Attached is a draft patch that allows domains over composite types.
>> I think it's probably complete on its own terms, but there are some
>> questions around behavior of functions returning
On 07/13/2017 03:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I wrote:
>> I started to look into allowing domains over composite types, which is
>> another never-implemented case that there's no very good reason not to
>> allow. Well, other than the argument that the SQL standard only allows
>> domains over
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, it does, although I'm not sure how intuitive it is that the
> parentheses are significant ...
>
> regression=# select fdc.* from fdc();
> fdc
> ---
> (1,2)
> (1 row)
>
> regression=# select (fdc).* from fdc();
>
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Thursday, July 13, 2017, Tom Lane wrote:
>> regression=# select * from fdc();
>> fdc
>> ---
>> (1,2)
>> (1 row)
> Select (fdc).* from fdc(); is considerably more intuitive that the cast.
> Does that give the
On Thursday, July 13, 2017, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> regression=# select * from fdc();
> fdc
> ---
> (1,2)
> (1 row)
>
>
Select (fdc).* from fdc(); is considerably more intuitive that the cast.
Does that give the expected multi-column result?
David J.
I wrote:
> I started to look into allowing domains over composite types, which is
> another never-implemented case that there's no very good reason not to
> allow. Well, other than the argument that the SQL standard only allows
> domains over "predefined" (built-in) types ... but we blew past
I started to look into allowing domains over composite types, which is
another never-implemented case that there's no very good reason not to
allow. Well, other than the argument that the SQL standard only allows
domains over "predefined" (built-in) types ... but we blew past that
restriction
11 matches
Mail list logo