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
