From: | Richard Poole <richard(dot)poole(at)vi(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Re: Outstanding patches |
Date: | 2001-05-08 22:15:53 |
Message-ID: | 20010508231553.A30581@office.vi.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-jdbc |
On Tue, May 08, 2001 at 05:49:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I presume that Ian is not thinking about such a scenario, but only about
> using %type in a schema file that he will reload into a freshly created
> database each time he edits it. That avoids the issue of whether %type
> declarations can or should track changes on the fly, but I think he's
> still going to run into problems with function naming: do
> fooey(foo.bar%type) and fooey(foo.baz%type) conflict, or not? Maybe
> today the schema works and tomorrow you get an error.
How about a feature in psql which would read something like '%type' and
convert it to the appropriate thing before it passed it to the backend?
Then you could use it without thinking about it in a script which you
would \i into psql. That would do what's wanted here without having
any backend nasties. I'm not offering to implement it myself - at least
not right now - but does it seem like a sensible idea?
Richard
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-08 22:24:18 | Re: Re: Outstanding patches |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-08 22:08:07 | Re: Outstanding patches |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-08 22:24:18 | Re: Re: Outstanding patches |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-05-08 22:08:07 | Re: Outstanding patches |