Re: System vs non-system casts
От | Michael Paesold |
---|---|
Тема | Re: System vs non-system casts |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 005901c53f2a$562a0d60$0f01a8c0@zaphod обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | System vs non-system casts ("Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: System vs non-system casts
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Also, it would ideally be possible to deliberately create a new cast > that pg_dump would ignore --- you can do this for other object kinds > by creating them in the pg_catalog schema. > > It's a little bit odd to think of casts as belonging to schemas, > since they don't have names in the normal sense. We could probably > bull ahead and do it anyway though. > > 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. > > The former approach seems preferable if you want the schema search path > to affect the findability of casts, and the latter approach if you > don't. Right at the moment I'm too tired to figure out which one of > those things I believe ... any thoughts? 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. Best Regards, Michael Paesold
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: