On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >> On mån, 2010-12-13 at 10:55 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >>> We don't normally invent specialized syntax for a specific datatype. >>> Not even if it's in core. > >> I think the idea would be to make associative arrays a kind of >> second-order object like arrays, instead of a data type. > > I haven't actually figured out what the benefit would be, other than > buzzword compliance and a chance to invent some random nonstandard > syntax. If the element values all have to be the same type, you've > basically got hstore.
Not exactly, because in hstore all the element values have to be, specifically, text. Having hstores of other kinds of objects would, presumably, be useful. > If they are allowed to be different types, > what have you got but a record? Surely SQL can do composite types > already. I think I mostly agree with this. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
