Re: Bad behaviour when inserting unspecified variable length datatypes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Dave Blasby <dblasby(at)refractions(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Bad behaviour when inserting unspecified variable length datatypes
Date: 2001-09-06 04:49:54
Message-ID: 29856.999751794@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> I propose that we define typdefault as containing the *external*
> representation of the desired value, and have get_typdefault apply the
> type's input conversion function to produce a Datum. Any objections?

This change is committed for 7.2.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-09-06 05:03:21 Re: Is there a problem running vacuum in the middle of a transaction?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-09-06 04:04:14 Re: Log rotation?