> See $SUBJECT. It seems to me this is a bad idea for much the same
> reasons that we recently decided default index operator classes should
> not be namespace-specific:
> 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.
> With the existing definition, any change in search_path could
> theoretically cause a change in client-to-server encoding conversion
> behavior, and this just seems like a really bad idea. (It's only
> theoretical because we don't actually redo the conversion function
> search on a search_path change ... but if you think the existing
> definition is good then that's a bug.)
Then why do we have CREATE DEFAULT CONVERSION command at all?
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-03-27 23:02:23|
|Subject: Re: Why are default encoding conversions namespace-specific? |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-03-27 22:45:54|
|Subject: Re: Domains as Subtypes |