Re: proposal: regrole type?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: proposal: regrole type?
Date: 2012-12-25 18:57:52
Message-ID: 23617.1356461872@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> * We can reduce to half lot of functions \df has_* (84 functions)

Not without breaking existing queries. A function taking regrole might
look like it substitutes for one taking a text-string user name as long
as you only pass literal constants to it, but as soon as you pass
non-constants you'll find out different. (Unless your plan is to also
create an implicit cast from text to regrole, which strikes me as a
seriously bad idea.)

The reason we've not been more aggressive about using the OID-alias
pseudotypes is exactly that they're not a cure-all. Otherwise we would
already have about a dozen more of them. I don't think it's really
worth it: the notational savings is pretty marginal and the impact on
application namespace should not be ignored. (Keep in mind that any new
system type causes problems for similarly-named user tables.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2012-12-26 07:25:05 Re: proposal: regrole type?
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2012-12-25 18:44:14 Re: proposal: regrole type?