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

Re: [HACKERS] Re: [DOCS] Re: FE/BE protocol revision patcht

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: dg(at)illustra(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [DOCS] Re: FE/BE protocol revision patcht
Date: 1998-06-01 06:19:44
Message-ID: 35724800.6E4CAE09@alumni.caltech.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
> OK, I can change it, but it is not easy.  Will take time.
> > Can we go to int32 on atttypmod? I'll try to break it up into two
> > sub-fields to implement numeric().

I am planning on stripping out the atttypmod usage for string type input
functions (that third parameter). 

That was the wrong end to check, since it is the point at which storage
happens that things really need to be checked. Otherwise, no
validation/verification can happen on expression results, only on
constant input values.

Don't know if ignoring that area makes things any easier for you...

                     - Tom

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas G. LockhartDate: 1998-06-01 06:29:55
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Current sources?
Previous:From: Thomas G. LockhartDate: 1998-06-01 06:15:33
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] duplicate oids in pg_proc

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2013 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group