Tom Lane said:
> Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
>>> I don't mind having encoding conversions be named within schemas, but
>>> I propose that any given encoding pair be allowed to have only one
>>> default conversion, period, and that when we are looking for a
>>> default conversion we find it by a non-namespace-aware search.
>
>> That doesn't sound good idea to me.
>
> What does it mean to have different "default" encoding conversions in
> different schemas? Even if this had a sensible interpretation, I don't
> think the existing code implements it properly.
perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but why not just resolve the namespace at the
time the default conversion is created?
cheers
andrew