2010/12/13 Dmitriy Igrishin <dmit...@gmail.com>: > > > 2010/12/13 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> >> >> 2010/12/13 Dmitriy Igrishin <dmit...@gmail.com>: >> > There are a lot of operators and functions to work with hstore. >> > Does it worth it to implement similar things only to make it >> > possible using operator [] ? >> >> yes >> >> > >> > 2010/12/13 Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> name and interface - hstore is designed as external module - a >> >> >> internal class can be designed different. >> >> > Could you actually name such a difference rather than pointing to >> >> > some >> >> > airily >> >> > hint of one? That would make it way much easier to see where you want >> >> > to >> >> > go. >> >> >> >> My idea is: >> >> >> >> somevar['key'] = value >> >> value = somevar['key']; >> > >> > What type of <value> is? Can it be assoc. array ? >> > Is it possible to indexing assoc. array by position ? >> > Any many many other questions can be there. So, >> > I don't think that assoc. arrays has common interface. >> > Its still specialized type. >> >> It's question. Minimally it can be a any known (defined) type - >> composite type too. It would be nice if we can store data in native >> format with constraints. Now Hstore can store only text - (note: It's >> terrible hard to write this as external module, so Hstore does maximum >> what is possible). >> >> > But, Pavel, I feel you idea. You want to make the syntax >> > clear in particular... >> >> I like a possibility to define own types in pg. But sometimes, and >> associative arrays is it, created interface is "too specific" - like >> Hstore is it. PostgreSQL doesn't allow to extend a parser - and Hstore >> respects it in design. So when we could to move hstore functionality >> to core, we can extend a parser, and we can create some general usable >> API. It can be big plus for stored procedures programming. This is >> just my opinion - when Hstore will be in core, then we will not have a >> native associative array ever, so from my perspective is better Hstore >> as contrib module. > > In my opinion, hstore is defined and implemented well. Its complete in most > cases. Therefore hstore is mature enough to be in core. > > On the other hand associative arrays should be implemented from scratch. > Very well. Let it be. But how integration hstore in core today can interfere > with implementation of support for associative arrays in future ? Is it will > a big problem ?
I think so it can be a problem. Any second implemented feature will have a handicap, because there will be a similar and realised feature. Maybe I am too pessimist, but there are very minimal probability to common existence two similar features in core like hstore or associative arrays. And because associative arrays are more general than hstore, I prefer a associative arrays. Hstore works well and a moving it to core doesn't carry a new value. It's not comparable with TSearch2. What I know, contrib modules are not problem for DBA now and Hstore hasn't a "complex" installation like TSearch2 had. More - there are not a security issues that had to be solved with TSearch2. Why we need a Hstore in core? Why Hstore need be in core? Back to plpython. There is possibility to call a external library without linking. So Hstore must not be in core - and PL/Python can call it. Regards Pavel Stehule >> >> Regards >> >> Pavel Stehule >> >> > >> >> >> >> or with constructor >> >> >> >> somevar = ARRAY[key1 => value1, key2 => value2, .. ] >> >> >> >> or some similar. >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> Pavel Stehule >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > // Dmitriy. >> > >> > >> > > > > > -- > // Dmitriy. > > > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
