Re: binary-compatible of pgCast

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
To: "Hiroshi Saito" <saito(at)inetrt(dot)skcapi(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "Andreas Pflug" <Andreas(dot)Pflug(at)web(dot)de>, <pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: binary-compatible of pgCast
Date: 2003-09-09 09:39:59
Message-ID: 03AF4E498C591348A42FC93DEA9661B844B5BD@mail.vale-housing.co.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers

Thanks Hiroshi, patch applied.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hiroshi Saito [mailto:saito(at)inetrt(dot)skcapi(dot)co(dot)jp]
> Sent: 09 September 2003 03:49
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Andreas Pflug; pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: binary-compatible of pgCast
>
>
> Hi Dave.
>
> I have one cast of binary-compatible for largeobject.
> Though it is hardly made except for it,
> it thinks that we must show the policy of it.
>
> This is made by psql.
> CREATE CAST (lo AS integer) WITHOUT FUNCTION;
> It doesn't appear on pgadmin for the limitation.
>
> But, though it is binary-compatible,
> Cast of the next which is supposed to be restricted can be
> made by Dialog. CREATE CAST (timestamp AS int8) WITHOUT
> FUNCTION AS EXPLICIT; This shouldn't be made if it is here
> because it is restricted.
>
> I want to handle this as an effective thing.
> It can be handled with this patch.
> Any Comment?
>
> Regards,
> Hiroshi Saito
>
>
>
>
>

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2003-09-09 09:48:03 Re: pgAggregate problem any function
Previous Message Hiroshi Saito 2003-09-09 07:00:46 dlgConversion_patch