David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 03:39:39AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> > > On tis, 2011-05-17 at 14:11 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> > >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > The more controversial question is what to do if someone tries to
> > >> > create such a cast anyway. ?We could just ignore that as we do now, or
> > >> > we could throw a NOTICE, WARNING, or ERROR.
> > >>
> > >> IMHO, not being an error per se but an implementation limitation i
> > >> would prefer to send a WARNING
> > >
> > > Implementation limitations are normally reported as errors. ?I don't see
> > > why it should be different here.
> > >
> > ok, patch reports an error... do we want to backpatch this? if we want
> > to do so maybe we can backpatch as a warning
> Minor clarification attached.
What happened to this patch for casts on domains from June?
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2011-11-29 02:49:03|
|Subject: Re: WIP: collect frequency statistics for arrays|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2011-11-29 02:38:51|
|Subject: Allow pg_dumpall to use dumpmem.c functions, simplify exit