On 03/31/2015 04:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> In view of that, you could certainly argue that if someone's bothered
> to make a patch to add a new regFOO type, it's useful enough. I don't
> want to end up with thirtysomething of them, but we don't seem to be
> trending in that direction.
>
> Or in short, objection withdrawn. (As to the concept, anyway.
> I've not read the patch...)
>
>
The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
than create a dependency if a value is used in a default expression, an
error is raised if one is found. Are we OK with that?
cheers
andrew
