| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>, "Noah Misch" <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, lr(at)pcorp(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Domains versus polymorphic functions, redux |
| Date: | 2011-06-03 19:01:24 |
| Message-ID: | 3996.1307127684@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Another long-range nicety would be something which I have seen in
> some other databases, and which is consistent with the inheritance
> theme, is that you can't compare or assign dissimilar domains -- an
> error is thrown. So if you try to join from the eye color column in
> a person table to the key of a hair color table, you get an error
> unless you explicitly cast one or both of them to the common type.
[ raised eyebrow ... ] This is all pretty cute, but I think it goes
against both the letter and spirit of the SQL standard. What you
are describing might be a useful thing to have, but it isn't a SQL
domain.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Golub | 2011-06-03 19:03:26 | Error in PQsetvalue |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-03 18:58:44 | Re: Domains versus polymorphic functions, redux |