| From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE CAST allows creation of binary-coercible cast to range over domain |
| Date: | 2024-08-21 07:55:30 |
| Message-ID: | CAMbWs4_NfUheqvfnjgM9DatOB9sO0==a5js=QUfF9Z_0OxhPLA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 2:14 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
> On 20.08.24 19:30, Tom Lane wrote:
> > In short, more or less as attached. (I didn't bother with a
> > regression test, since none of the adjacent error checks are
> > covered either.)
>
> This patch looks right.
This patch also looks good to me. To nitpick:
- * We know that composite, enum and array types are never binary-
- * compatible with each other. They all have OIDs embedded in them.
+ * We know that composite, array, range and enum types are never
+ * binary-compatible with each other. They all have OIDs embedded in
+ * them.
I wonder if it would be better for readability to list these types in
the order we check them in the code, as we did previously, i.e.:
* We know that composite, range, enum and array types are never
* ...
Thanks
Richard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2024-08-21 11:53:29 | BUG #18586: Process (and transaction) is stuck in IPC when the DB is under high load |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-08-21 06:14:23 | Re: CREATE CAST allows creation of binary-coercible cast to range over domain |