| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Golub <pavel(at)gf(dot)microolap(dot)com>, Pavel Golub <pavel(at)microolap(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Proposal: variant of regclass |
| Date: | 2013-12-05 14:57:38 |
| Message-ID: | 52A09462.6070205@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/5/13, 9:41 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Pavel Golub <pavel(at)microolap(dot)com> writes:
>> I personally see two approaches:
>> 1. Implement GUC variable controling this behaviour per session
>> 2. Introduce new safe reg* variables, e.g. "sregclass", "sregtype" etc.
>
> I don't think new types are a good idea. If we are afraid to change
> the behavior of the input converters, what we should do is introduce
> new functions, eg "toregclass(text) returns regclass".
We could invent some sneaky syntax variants, like 'pg_klass'::regclass
errors, but '?pg_klass'::regclass does not.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2013-12-05 15:00:55 | Re: same-address mappings vs. relative pointers |
| Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2013-12-05 14:54:18 | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |