Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
>> It's kinda hard for me to visualize where it makes sense to define
>> the original table column as the bare type but use a domain when
>> referencing it in the view.
>
> As far as that goes, I think the OP was unhappy about the performance
> of the information_schema views, which in our implementation do exactly
> that so that the exposed types of the view columns conform to the SQL
> standard, even though the underlying catalogs use PG-centric types.
>
> I don't believe that that's the only reason why the performance of the
> information_schema views tends to be sucky, but it's certainly a reason.
Is that schema too "edge case" to justify some functional indexes
on the cast values on the underlying catalogs? (I'm inclined to
think so, but it seemed like a question worth putting out
there....)
Or, since these particular domains are known, is there any sane way
to "special-case" these to allow the underlying types to work?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
