From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paesold <mpaesold(at)gmx(dot)at> |
Cc: | andrew(at)supernews(dot)com, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: System vs non-system casts |
Date: | 2005-04-12 16:13:31 |
Message-ID: | 20050412161331.GL17283@dcc.uchile.cl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 08:39:09AM +0200, Michael Paesold wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> >The other possible solution that comes to mind is to invent the notion
> >that a cast has a specific owner (which arguably it should have anyway)
> >and then say that "system casts" are those whose owner is the original
> >superuser.
>
> Just my toughts: I believe it's better when cast selection does not depend
> on the search_path. It seems dangerous for objects that you don't usually
> qualify with a schema. With all other objects in schemas I can think of,
> you can easily write the full-qualified name.
>
> So I vote for the latter.
So casts created by the original superuser don't get dumped? That's not
good IMHO.
But yes, schema-qualifying casts seems weird:
'123'::someschema.user_type
Is that even accepted by the grammar?
--
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[(at)]dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>)
"La fuerza no está en los medios físicos
sino que reside en una voluntad indomable" (Gandhi)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-04-12 16:34:58 | Re: System vs non-system casts |
Previous Message | calvin247 | 2005-04-12 15:58:43 | recovery from idiot delete error |