From: | "Rod Taylor" <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: Domain Support -- another round |
Date: | 2002-03-21 15:03:20 |
Message-ID: | 033201c1d0e9$8bbad840$5302000a@jester |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> There are still some things that need to be worked on:
>
> 1. pg_dump. We *cannot* release this feature in 7.3 if there's not
> pg_dump support for it.
I intend to try to do this next week.
> 2. Arrays. I don't much care for the fact that arrays of
domain-type
> values aren't supported. The handling of domains that are
themselves
> arrays seems a tad odd as well: the array-ish nature of the domain
is
> exposed, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Perhaps we'd be
> better off to forbid array domains.
The reason I didn't make array types for domains is that I have
absolutly no idea how to manage the below case once point 4 is
implemented.
create domain dom as int4 check (VALUE > 5);
create table tab (col1 dom[2][3]);
> 3. Domains on domains. Why shouldn't I be able to make a domain
that's
> a further restriction of another domain?
Not entirely sure, except the book I had (SQL99 Complete, Really)
specifically forbids it.
> 4. CHECK constraints for domains (which after all is the real point,
> no?)
Yes, I'm slow and only capable of one step at a time. Foreign key
constraints are the other real point.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-03-21 15:26:49 | Re: Linux/mips compile should not use -mips2 |
Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-03-21 13:51:50 | Re: Domains and type coercion |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fernando Nasser | 2002-03-21 15:32:19 | Re: Domain Support -- another round |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-03-21 14:43:20 | Re: pg_dump and transactions |