Re: System vs non-system casts

From: Michael Paesold
Subject: Re: System vs non-system casts
Date: ,
Msg-id: 005901c53f2a$562a0d60$0f01a8c0@zaphod
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: System vs non-system casts  ("Jim C. Nasby")
Responses: Re: System vs non-system casts  (Alvaro Herrera)
List: pgsql-hackers

Tree view

System vs non-system casts  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
 Re: System vs non-system casts  (Robert Treat, )
 Re: System vs non-system casts  (Andrew - Supernews, )
  Re: System vs non-system casts  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: System vs non-system casts  ("Michael Paesold", )
  Re: System vs non-system casts  (Alvaro Herrera, )
   Re: System vs non-system casts  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: System vs non-system casts  ("Michael Paesold", )
  Re: System vs non-system casts  (Alvaro Herrera, )
   Re: System vs non-system casts  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: System vs non-system casts  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
 Re: System vs non-system casts  (Andrew - Supernews, )
  Re: System vs non-system casts  (Alvaro Herrera, )
   Re: System vs non-system casts  (Tom Lane, )

Tom Lane wrote:

> Also, it would ideally be possible to deliberately create a new cast
> that pg_dump would ignore --- you can do this for other object kinds
> by creating them in the pg_catalog schema.
>
> It's a little bit odd to think of casts as belonging to schemas,
> since they don't have names in the normal sense.  We could probably
> bull ahead and do it anyway though.
>
> The other possible solution that comes to mind is to invent the notion
> that a cast has a specific owner (which arguably it should have anyway)
> and then say that "system casts" are those whose owner is the original
> superuser.
>
> The former approach seems preferable if you want the schema search path
> to affect the findability of casts, and the latter approach if you
> don't.  Right at the moment I'm too tired to figure out which one of
> those things I believe ... any thoughts?

Just my toughts: I believe it's better when cast selection does not depend 
on the search_path. It seems dangerous for objects that you don't usually 
qualify with a schema. With all other objects in schemas I can think of, you 
can easily write the full-qualified name.

So I vote for the latter.

Best Regards,
Michael Paesold 




pgsql-hackers by date:

From: Thomas Hallgren
Date:
Subject: OUT parameters in PL/Java
From: "Andrew Dunstan"
Date:
Subject: Re: ISO-8859-1 encoding not enforced?