> 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.