Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: BUG #4688: Bug in cache.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Oleg <serovOv(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #4688: Bug in cache.
Date: 2009-03-03 15:37:43
Message-ID: 11309.1236094663@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Although this qualifies as pilot error (superusers are expected to know
>> what they're doing), should we attempt to prevent the case?

> We can't detect binary-incompatibility in general, so I presume you 
> meant just for the case of composite types. Hmm, I guess we could do it 
> in that case.

Right, I was envisioning "if both types are composite and there's no
function supplied, throw error".

> I believe the command has been like that for a long time, and this is 
> the first time someone managed to shoot one's foot.

True.  Maybe it's not worth the trouble.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2009-03-03 15:50:21
Subject: Re: BUG #4688: Bug in cache.
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2009-03-03 15:28:43
Subject: Re: BUG #4688: Bug in cache.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group