From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Oleg <serovOv(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: BUG #4688: Bug in cache. |
Date: | 2009-03-03 15:37:43 |
Message-ID: | 11309.1236094663@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Although this qualifies as pilot error (superusers are expected to know
>> what they're doing), should we attempt to prevent the case?
> We can't detect binary-incompatibility in general, so I presume you
> meant just for the case of composite types. Hmm, I guess we could do it
> in that case.
Right, I was envisioning "if both types are composite and there's no
function supplied, throw error".
> I believe the command has been like that for a long time, and this is
> the first time someone managed to shoot one's foot.
True. Maybe it's not worth the trouble.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Guillaume Smet | 2009-03-03 15:50:21 | Re: BUG #4688: Bug in cache. |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-03-03 15:28:43 | Re: BUG #4688: Bug in cache. |