| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Mike Fowler <mike(at)mlfowler(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch |
| Date: | 2010-08-06 20:49:07 |
| Message-ID: | [email protected] |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2010/8/6 David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>:
> On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:13 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> That would work too, although I think it might be a bit harder to use
>> than one alternating-name-and-value array, at least in some scenarios.
>> You'd have to be careful that you got the values in the same order in
>> both arrays, which'd be easy to botch.
>>
>> There might be other use-cases where two separate arrays are easier
>> to use, but I'm not seeing one offhand.
>
> Stuff like this makes me wish PostgreSQL had an ordered pair data type. Then you'd just have a function with `variadic ordered pair` as the signature.
>
yes it is one a possibility and probably best. The nice of this
variant can be two forms like current variadic does - foo(.., a :=
10, b := 10) or foo(.., variadic ARRAY[(a,10),(b,10)])
> I don't suppose anyone has implemented a data type like this…
>
> Best,
>
> David
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-08-06 20:50:16 | Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2010-08-06 20:48:58 | Re: Initial review of xslt with no limits patch |