| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com, andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: How about to have relnamespace and relrole? |
| Date: | 2015-04-01 15:20:38 |
| Message-ID: | 551C0CC6.7090506@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 03/31/2015 04:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In view of that, you could certainly argue that if someone's bothered
> to make a patch to add a new regFOO type, it's useful enough. I don't
> want to end up with thirtysomething of them, but we don't seem to be
> trending in that direction.
>
> Or in short, objection withdrawn. (As to the concept, anyway.
> I've not read the patch...)
>
>
The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
than create a dependency if a value is used in a default expression, an
error is raised if one is found. Are we OK with that?
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-04-01 15:28:21 | Re: Combining Aggregates |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-04-01 15:20:24 | Re: How about to have relnamespace and relrole? |