| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thomas Reiss <thomas(dot)reiss(at)dalibo(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Casting issues with domains |
| Date: | 2014-12-10 23:01:09 |
| Message-ID: | 31143.1418252469@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> writes:
> It's kinda hard for me to visualize where it makes sense to define
> the original table column as the bare type but use a domain when
> referencing it in the view.
As far as that goes, I think the OP was unhappy about the performance
of the information_schema views, which in our implementation do exactly
that so that the exposed types of the view columns conform to the SQL
standard, even though the underlying catalogs use PG-centric types.
I don't believe that that's the only reason why the performance of the
information_schema views tends to be sucky, but it's certainly a reason.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2014-12-10 23:23:46 | Re: Casting issues with domains |
| Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2014-12-10 22:44:50 | WRITE_UINT_FIELD used where WRITE_OID_FIELD likely intended |