From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | greg(at)ngender(dot)net, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 4.1beta1: ANYARRAY disallowed for DOMAIN types which happen to be arrays |
Date: | 2011-05-10 17:53:06 |
Message-ID: | BANLkTimVTDrnXzJ93E-JRnqZzWo+Qtc2Tg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> So we basically had three alternatives to make it better:
>>> * downcast to the array type, which would possibly silently
>>> break applications that were relying on the function result
>>> being considered of the domain type
>>> * re-apply domain checks on the function result, which would be
>>> a performance hit and possibly again result in unobvious
>>> breakage
>>> * explicitly break it by throwing a parse error until you
>>> downcast (and then upcast the function result if you want)
>>> I realize that #3 is a bit unpleasant, but are either of the other two
>>> better? At least #3 shows you where you need to check for problems.
>
>> Aren't any applications that would be broken by #1 broken already?
>
> My point is that doing #1 would break them *silently* --- if you did
> have a problem, figuring out what it was could require a great deal
> of sleuthing.
Eh, I'm confused. Explain further?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-05-10 17:54:03 | Re: Formatting Curmudgeons WAS: MMAP Buffers |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-05-10 17:52:10 | Re: 4.1beta1: ANYARRAY disallowed for DOMAIN types which happen to be arrays |