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
---
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 i
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
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 a
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...
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 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
b
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.
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 namesp
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 c
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
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:
> 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 agree
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 pro
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 ins
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
conventi
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
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.
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
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
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,
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 peopl
22 matches
Mail list logo
