Re: [HACKERS] current CVS snapshot of pgsql crash ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Jan Wieck <jwieck(at)debis(dot)com>, davids(at)orfinet(dot)cz, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] current CVS snapshot of pgsql crash ...
Date: 1999-07-08 00:03:26
Message-ID: 27593.931392206@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Re-added to TODO list :-)

> * Fix typein/out functions to not be user-callable

Please rephrase it:

* Declare typein/out functions in pg_proc with a special "C string" data type

We want to type-check their uses correctly, not forbid their use.

regards, tom lane

>> The real problem here is that the type system needs to have a notion
>> of "C string" as a datatype so that the type input and output functions
>> can be declared *properly* with the true nature of their inputs and
>> results given correctly. Then typeain(typebout(typebvalue)) would work
>> and textout(byteaout(...)) would be rejected, as it should be.
>>
>> The typechecking escape convention (zero in the proargtypes signature)
>> should only be used for functions that really do accept any kind of
>> datum. I think there are some (count(*) for one) but not many.
>>
>> The "C string" type is not quite a real type, because we don't want to
>> let people declare columns of that type (I assume). OTOH it must be
>> real enough to let people declare user-defined functions that accept or
>> return it. Right now, the I/O functions for user-defined types are
>> supposed to be declared to take or return type OPAQUE, but I think
>> that pseudo-type is being used for too many different things.
>>
>> Obviously none of this is going to happen for 6.5, but it should go
>> on the TODO list.
>>
>> regards, tom lane

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1999-07-08 00:07:20 Re: [HACKERS] Priorities for 6.6
Previous Message Tom Lane 1999-07-08 00:00:28 Re: [HACKERS] inherited GROUP BY is busted ... I need some help here