Re: pg_dump vs. TRANSFORMs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jim Nasby
Subject Re: pg_dump vs. TRANSFORMs
Date
Msg-id 04738f95-2dd4-0d8e-397a-e65720cab36f@BlueTreble.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump vs. TRANSFORMs  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 5/5/16 8:33 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I strongly disagree with the idea that this is only an issue with the
> testing system.  What if we add functions in the future that are
> created by initdb and *are* useful for transforms?  What about casts?
> There are a lot of functions in pg_catalog that a user might wish to use
> to define their own cast.  This also doesn't do anything about users
> creating functions in pg_catalog.

+1 to all of that. I know that I've at least created casts using 
built-in functions during testing, and I think I might be doing it in 
some of my extensions.

As for transforms, I suspect we're going to end up with some of those in 
initdb in the future, because it's currently the only way you can 
improve existing type transformations without breaking existing PL code.
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
855-TREBLE2 (855-873-2532)   mobile: 512-569-9461



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: new tests post-feature freeze (was pgsql: Add TAP tests for pg_dump)
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: what to revert