On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 07:16:13PM +0100, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >"Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> writes:
> >>On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 10:49:00PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>>I think we've got that one actually. It's domains as PL-function
> >>>types that aren't checked. Also plpgsql fails to enforce domain
> >>>on its local variables.
> >>So is this the complete list?
> >No, I don't think so. IIRC we're also missing domain checks on
> >parameter values in Bind messages, and there might be some other
> >holes too. See the archives.
> >I made a suggestion about closing all these holes at once by
> >integrating domain checking into the I/O functions for domains,
> >but it's not clear how to do that without a big performance hit.
> Performance hit on just domain handling or overall? Personally, I'd
> rather see a hit on domain handling that we can work on later rather
> than the current state of things which seems to smack of MySQL (Get
> the feature 'checked off the list' first, then worry about doing it
> the right way).
The three issues I've raised regard the type behavior of domains with
operators and are completely independent of the input/output checks issues.
But I like the idea of centralizing the check in the input/output
functions. It seems clearer and cleaner. The procedural language
checks are harder, but may be easier to implement if there were
a centralized check domain functionality.
> Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
> Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
> vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Luke Lonergan||Date: 2006-03-26 01:42:28|
|Subject: Re: 8.2 planning features|
|Previous:||From: Joe Conway||Date: 2006-03-25 21:11:44|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Some employment changes ...|