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 15:57:00
Message-ID: 11672.1236095820@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> If we go down that path, how far do we go? We also know that two enums 
> are never binary-compatible, right? Composite type and a user-defined 
> base type? Hardly, unless you're doing something very hacky...

> Disallowing binary casts when any composite types or enums are involved 
> seems sane, but that's as far as we can go with a few lines of code.

Arrays have embedded type OIDs too ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: xuan--2009.03--submitbug--support--postgresql.orgDate: 2009-03-04 01:37:10
Subject: BUG #4689: Expanding the length of a VARCHAR column should not induce a table rewrite
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2009-03-03 15:50:40
Subject: Re: BUG #4688: Bug in cache.

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