Re: System vs non-system casts

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 01:04:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> > What about the simple one of having a bool "pg_cast.castissystem"
> > column, or something similar?
>
> This one is sounding pretty good to me, though I'd be inclined to call
> it "castisbuiltin" or some such.
>
> regards, tom lane

I hadn't thought of using owner to differentiate casts (one of Tom's
original suggestions). I like the idea of having ownership of casts
(unlike putting casts into schemas, this shouldn't have an operational
impact, and it brings casts more inline with the other system objects
that do record ownership). But I think using owner to indicate if a cast
should be considered part of the system or not is pretty obtuse.

I'm fine with having an 'is system' or 'is builtin' flag. Incidentally,
what's the proper nomenclature for built-in/system objects? Are they
'system' objects or 'built-in' objects? Currently we're calling them
system objects in the newsysviews project.

What do people think about adding cast ownership at the same time?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"