Awhile back I wrote:
I did some tests just now to determine the total number of catalog
entries associated with a simple table definition. Assuming it has
N user columns of built-in types (hence not requiring pg_depend entries
for the datatypes), I count
1 pg_class entry for the table
On 5/11/07, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW, in the array patch as just committed, I was able to get rid of the
I am testing this feature, no problem so far. It's fast, and works
exactly as advertised! Great work! (aiui, no domain arrays for 8.3?)
merlin
I wrote:
OK, summarising what looks to me like a consensus position, ISTM the
plan could be:
. fix makeArrayTypeName() or similar to make it try harder to generate
a unique non-clashing name
. remove the existing 62 instead of 63 name length restrictions
. autogenerate array types for
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 01:33:47PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
However, there are still some oddities. For example, a change to or
removal of the base type affects the array type, but the array type
can be directly operated on (e.g. alter type _aa set schema foo ).
I'm inclined to say we
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How would we do that? Not create the array types in bootstrap mode? Or
just special-case pg_statistic?
Not generate them in bootstrap mode works for me. IIRC, there's code
somewhere in there that allows anyarray to pass as a
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Regarding catalog objects, we might have to try a little harder than
just not generating in bootstrap mode - IIRC we generate system views
(including pg_stats) in non-bootstrap mode. Maybe we just need to exempt
anything in the pg_catalog namespace.
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 10:40:49AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Regarding catalog objects, we might have to try a little harder than
just not generating in bootstrap mode - IIRC we generate system views
(including pg_stats) in non-bootstrap mode. Maybe
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 10:14:41AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
. defer for the present any consideration of a CREATE TYPE foo AS ARRAY
... command.
What is the rationale for allowing people to name the array type. When
I originally proposed the syntax I presumed that the array name would
be
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 10:14:41AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
. defer for the present any consideration of a CREATE TYPE foo AS ARRAY
... command.
What is the rationale for allowing people to name the array type. When
I originally proposed the syntax I
On Mon, Apr 09, 2007 at 04:07:16PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Some type systems have named array types, some don't. I can live happily
with either. Are array types anonymous in the standard?
Yes, they're anonymous in the standard. That doesn't mean we can't give
them names if we wanted...
Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:01:44PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
So, hum, what happened to the idea of creating the array types only
on demand?
Scotched, as far as I could tell,
More like you submitted a patch
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One of the things that's been bothering me about this proposal is that
it leaves untouched and indeed greatly expands the scope of the typename
mangling we do. (i.e. adding an entry to pg_type with _ prepended).
Yeah, that's been bothering me too.
On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 07:08:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One of the things that's been bothering me about this proposal is that
it leaves untouched and indeed greatly expands the scope of the typename
mangling we do. (i.e. adding an entry to
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
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
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
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
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
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm slightly inclined to agree with David that the danger of catalog
bloat isn't that great, and might not justify the extra work that some
sort of explicit array creation would involve (e.g. changes in grammar,
pg_dump), as long as we are agreed
Tom Lane wrote:
Based on this, I withdraw my efficiency concern about generating
rowtypes for all user tables. I do, however, still object to generating
them for system tables. In particular an array type for pg_statistic
will actively Not Work and probably constitute a security hole, because
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How would we do that? Not create the array types in bootstrap mode? Or
just special-case pg_statistic?
Not generate them in bootstrap mode works for me. IIRC, there's code
somewhere in there that allows anyarray to pass as a column type in
bootstrap
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:01:44PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
So, hum, what happened to the idea of creating the array types only
on demand?
Scotched, as far as I could tell,
More like you submitted a patch that entirely ignores multiple people's
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 02:30:07AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:01:44PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
So, hum, what happened to the idea of creating the array types
only on demand?
Scotched, as far as I could tell,
More like
Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 10:01:44PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
So, hum, what happened to the idea of creating the array types only
on demand?
Scotched, as far as I could tell,
More like you submitted a patch that entirely
22 matches
Mail list logo
