From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Assignment of valid collation for SET operations on queries with UNKNOWN types. |
Date: | 2017-01-23 16:26:26 |
Message-ID: | 29034.1485188786@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> UNKNOWN is not exactly a pseudo-type.
> Well, as I said to Michael just now, I think we should turn it into one
> now that we're disallowing it in tables, because "cannot be used as a
> table column" is more or less the definition of a pseudotype.
I experimented with this, and it actually doesn't seem to be any harder
than the attached: there's one type_sanity query that changes results,
and otherwise all the regression tests pass.
I've grepped the code for references to UNKNOWNOID and TYPTYPE_PSEUDO,
and I can't find any places where the behavior would change in a way
that we don't want. Basically it looks like we'd disallow UNKNOWN as
a domain base, a PL function argument or result, and a plpgsql local
variable; and all of those seem like good things from here.
Have not checked the docs.
regards, tom lane
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
make-UNKNOWN-a-true-pseudotype.patch | text/x-diff | 4.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-01-23 16:32:08 | Re: GSoC 2017 |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2017-01-23 16:19:07 | Re: Logical Replication WIP |