Обсуждение: pgsql-server: Some preliminary documentation for composite-type stuff.

Log Message:
-----------
Some preliminary documentation for composite-type stuff.

Modified Files:
--------------
    pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml:
        array.sgml (r1.34 -> r1.35)
        (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/array.sgml.diff?r1=1.34&r2=1.35)
        catalogs.sgml (r2.85 -> r2.86)
        (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml.diff?r1=2.85&r2=2.86)
        datatype.sgml (r1.144 -> r1.145)
        (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/datatype.sgml.diff?r1=1.144&r2=1.145)
        extend.sgml (r1.27 -> r1.28)
        (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/extend.sgml.diff?r1=1.27&r2=1.28)
        filelist.sgml (r1.37 -> r1.38)
        (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/filelist.sgml.diff?r1=1.37&r2=1.38)
        syntax.sgml (r1.92 -> r1.93)
        (http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/syntax.sgml.diff?r1=1.92&r2=1.93)

Added Files:
-----------
    pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml:
        rowtypes.sgml (r2.1)

(http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql-server/doc/src/sgml/rowtypes.sgml?rev=2.1&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup)

On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 01:04:48AM -0300, Tom Lane wrote:
> Log Message:
> -----------
> Some preliminary documentation for composite-type stuff.

*sigh*  Hard to keep up with this guy.  I'm off a weekend and he's
already modified half the source tree. :-D

Nice work.  This is a cool unexpected step forward in functionality.
Thanks.

--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"La conclusión que podemos sacar de esos estudios es que
no podemos sacar ninguna conclusión de ellos" (Tanenbaum)

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> Nice work.  This is a cool unexpected step forward in functionality.

As recently as Thursday I didn't think this would get done for 7.5,
but I wanted to nibble off a few rough edges, and after a while there
weren't any left.

Or almost ... I just noticed that there's no convenient way to assign to
a subfield in UPDATE.  You can hack around it with something like
    UPDATE mytab SET myfield = ROW(myfield.a, newval, myfield.c)
but my goodness that's painful.  AFAICS the SQL99 spec gives license
to write
    UPDATE mytab SET myfield.b = newval
and I think I will look into making that happen tomorrow.  We already
have a solution in place for assigning to an array element, and this
doesn't seem much different.

            regards, tom lane