Re: System vs non-system casts

From: Alvaro Herrera
Subject: Re: System vs non-system casts
Date: ,
Msg-id: 20050412164936.GB25114@dcc.uchile.cl
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: System vs non-system casts  ("Michael Paesold")
Responses: Re: System vs non-system casts  (Tom Lane)
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, )

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:38:41PM +0200, Michael Paesold wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 08:39:09AM +0200, Michael Paesold wrote:
> >>Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>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.
> >
> >So casts created by the original superuser don't get dumped?  That's
> >not good IMHO.
> 
> Well perhaps there is an even better solution?

What about the simple one of having a bool "pg_cast.castissystem"
column, or something similar?

> >But yes, schema-qualifying casts seems weird:
> >'123'::someschema.user_type
> >
> >Is that even accepted by the grammar?
> 
> It's the type you qualify here, not the cast, isn't it?

Yes, sorry.  I'm low on caffeine apparently.  Point on implicit casts
taken too.

-- 
Alvaro Herrera (<alvherre[@]dcc.uchile.cl>)
"I personally became interested in Linux while I was dating an English major
who wouldn't know an operating system if it walked up and bit him."
(Val Henson)



pgsql-hackers by date:

From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: System vs non-system casts
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: recovery from idiot delete error