Re: [HACKERS] A defect report and a question about money.

>
>
> Recently (last Saturday, as it happens) I upgraded from PostgreSQL v6.0 to
> v6.1.  I believe I followed the correct procedure for saving the old
> databases, and then restoring them in the new format.  However, the
> process didn't work quite right.
>
> In particular, I had some indexes that were built around a function that
> looks like this:
>
> CREATE FUNCTION strcatc2c16 (char2,char16 ) RETURNS text AS
> '/home/postgres/src/strcat/strcat.so' LANGUAGE 'C';
>
> The index definition I created looked like this:
>
> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX specialization_index ON specialization USING btree
> (strcatc2c16(code, stateBarNum) char_ops);
>
> But in the "db.out" file, it looked like this:
>
> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX specialization_index on specialization using btree
> (strcatc2c16(code) char_ops);
>


I just tested this under 6.1 of pg_dumpall, and got:

  CREATE UNIQUE INDEX specialization_index on specialization using btree
  (strcatc2c16 (code, statebarnum) char_ops );

So it looks like it was broken in 6.0, but fixed in 6.1, which doesn't
help your migration from 6.0, but shows it will work when you dump 6.1.


> No real harm done.  I don't know if composite unique indices didn't work
> in v6.0 or if I just didn't know about them so I didn't use them, but I
> reworked my database code to use them instead of the string concatenation
> function.
>
> However, it seems that there is a defect in pg_dumpall because it gets the
> number of parameters wrong in that case.
>
> Also, one of the features I was interested in in v6.1 (and, in addition to
> the desire to upgrade before the Houston NW Bar Association WWW page is
> operational, the real reason I upgraded early,) is the money data type.  I
> had done extensive work on my own currency data type in v6.0 and I wanted
> to quickly switch to a system with a built-in type of that sort.  However,
> there are some features I desire from currenty types and I'd like to see
> if I can't get them included in Postgres. Is there ongoing work on the
> "money" data type?  If so, how can I be a part of it.  (Ideally, I'd like
> to sort of take it over.  Kind of meld it in my own image or some such.)

There is a Money type in 6.1, but it does not have a user-defined
length, yet.


- --
Bruce Momjian
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us

------------------------------