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
>
>
>
>
>
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 |