From: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Cc: Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Oleksandr Shulgin <oleksandr.shulgin@zalando.de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Oleg Bartunov <obartunov@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 19:37:04 +0100
Message-ID: <20201209183704.x5ue5rctdwmhmlmy@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3635350.1607536188@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <CAFj8pRC3LNDN8KJoZqWg6o+sv9_MzeL1cLycLuQaen_HEW_V6A@mail.gmail.com>
<2155075.1607096548@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<2171753.1607106321@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<3143742.1607368115@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20201207212142.wz5tnbk2jsaqzogb@alap3.anarazel.de>
<3253106.1607443505@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20201209013003.hj4ealuvwmzvczs2@alap3.anarazel.de>
<3459640.1607477907@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<3544235.1607482944@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<3635350.1607536188@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 12:49:48PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I've pushed the core patch now.
Thanks a lot!
> The jsonb parts now have to be
> rebased onto this design, which I'm assuming Dmitry will tackle
Yes, I'm already on it, just couldn't keep up with the changes in this
thread.
> BTW, while reviewing the thread to write the commit message,
> I was reminded of my concerns around the "is it a container"
> business. As things stand, if type A has a typelem link to
> type B, then the system supposes that A contains B physically;
> this has implications for what's allowed in DDL, for example
> (cf find_composite_type_dependencies() and other places).
> We now have a feature whereby subscripting can yield a type
> that is not contained in the source type in that sense.
> I'd be happier if the "container" terminology were reserved for
> that sort of physical containment, which means that I think a lot
> of the commentary around SubscriptingRef is misleading. But I do
> not have a better word to suggest offhand. Thoughts?
I have only 'a composite'/'a compound' alternative in mind, but it's
probably the same confusing as a container.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: 9erthalion6@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, pavel.stehule@gmail.com, aekorotkov@gmail.com, pryzby@telsasoft.com, david@pgmasters.net, n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, david@fetter.org, thomas.munro@gmail.com, oleksandr.shulgin@zalando.de, robertmhaas@gmail.com, michael.paquier@gmail.com, obartunov@gmail.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Generic type subscripting
In-Reply-To: <20201209183704.x5ue5rctdwmhmlmy@localhost>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox