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

Re: cash_out bug

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)atentus(dot)com>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: cash_out bug
Date: 2002-08-12 05:30:38
Message-ID: 27732.1029130238@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Is this a problem in that the functions are definined to return opaque (eg.
> PG_RETURN_VOID) but are then still usable in SELECT statements?

The issue here is (once again) that we're overloading type oid 0
("opaque") to mean too many different, incompatible things.  I've
ranted about this before and will not repeat my previous remarks.
The bottom line is that we need to eliminate "opaque" in favor of
a set of pseudo-datatypes with different, crisply-defined semantics.
We've had some discussions about it but no complete proposal has been
made.  Since eliminating "opaque" is going to break just about every
extant user-defined datatype, I'm not in a hurry to do it until we
can get it right the first time...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Don BaccusDate: 2002-08-12 05:31:40
Subject: Re: OOP real life example (was Re: Why is MySQL more chosen
Previous:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2002-08-12 05:29:21
Subject: Re: OOP real life example (was Re: Why is MySQL more

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