> wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> >> Net result for user-defined-datatype authors will be "if you revise
> >> your routines, they will be easier to read, more portable, and will
> >> support TOASTed values. If you don't, they'll still work about as
> >> well (or poorly) as they did before."
>
> > Sorry, but that ain't true. Making an existing type toastable
> > means that all functions, receiving that type need to be
> > revised.
>
> What I meant was that they'd still work, with a limit on field size,
> just like before. ie, no TOAST support.
Yes, but at the first time, a toasted value is handed to them the result (up to backend crash) is unpredictable.
So any user defined function taking "text" as argument is potentially in danger!
Better tell them they have to revise.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #
