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

Re: BUG #4688: Bug in cache.

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Oleg <serovOv(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: BUG #4688: Bug in cache.
Date: 2009-03-04 12:13:32
Message-ID: 49AE706C.2020200@enterprisedb.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> If we go down that path, how far do we go? We also know that two enums 
>> are never binary-compatible, right? Composite type and a user-defined 
>> base type? Hardly, unless you're doing something very hacky...
> 
>> Disallowing binary casts when any composite types or enums are involved 
>> seems sane, but that's as far as we can go with a few lines of code.
> 
> Arrays have embedded type OIDs too ...

I've committed a simple check, disallowing composite types, enums and 
arrays in binary casts.

-- 
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Gregory ClarkDate: 2009-03-04 15:42:50
Subject: BUG #4691: Installation error
Previous:From: Guillaume SmetDate: 2009-03-04 10:57:17
Subject: Re: BUG #4689: Expanding the length of a VARCHAR column should not induce a table rewrite

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