| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: cash_out bug |
| Date: | 2002-08-12 05:43:41 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOCEKFCDAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> The issue here is (once again) that we're overloading type oid 0
> ("opaque") to mean too many different, incompatible things. I've
> ranted about this before and will not repeat my previous remarks.
> The bottom line is that we need to eliminate "opaque" in favor of
> a set of pseudo-datatypes with different, crisply-defined semantics.
> We've had some discussions about it but no complete proposal has been
> made. Since eliminating "opaque" is going to break just about every
> extant user-defined datatype, I'm not in a hurry to do it until we
> can get it right the first time...
I guess if anyone were to make a complete proposal, it would have to be you
then methinks... Is it worth starting a thread about it at this stage? It
is a pretty serious problem.
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-08-12 05:51:34 | Re: OOP real life example (was Re: Why is MySQL more chosen |
| Previous Message | Don Baccus | 2002-08-12 05:31:40 | Re: OOP real life example (was Re: Why is MySQL more chosen |