|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Assignment of valid collation for SET operations on queries with UNKNOWN types.|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> UNKNOWN is not exactly a pseudo-type.
> Well, as I said to Michael just now, I think we should turn it into one
> now that we're disallowing it in tables, because "cannot be used as a
> table column" is more or less the definition of a pseudotype.
I experimented with this, and it actually doesn't seem to be any harder
than the attached: there's one type_sanity query that changes results,
and otherwise all the regression tests pass.
I've grepped the code for references to UNKNOWNOID and TYPTYPE_PSEUDO,
and I can't find any places where the behavior would change in a way
that we don't want. Basically it looks like we'd disallow UNKNOWN as
a domain base, a PL function argument or result, and a plpgsql local
variable; and all of those seem like good things from here.
Have not checked the docs.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Stephen Frost||2017-01-23 16:32:08||Re: GSoC 2017|
|Previous Message||Fujii Masao||2017-01-23 16:19:07||Re: Logical Replication WIP|