Re: [HACKERS] Re: [DOCS] Re: FE/BE protocol revision patcht

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: dg(at)illustra(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: [DOCS] Re: FE/BE protocol revision patcht
Date: 1998-06-01 06:19:44
Message-ID: 35724800.6E4CAE09@alumni.caltech.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> OK, I can change it, but it is not easy. Will take time.
> > Can we go to int32 on atttypmod? I'll try to break it up into two
> > sub-fields to implement numeric().

I am planning on stripping out the atttypmod usage for string type input
functions (that third parameter).

That was the wrong end to check, since it is the point at which storage
happens that things really need to be checked. Otherwise, no
validation/verification can happen on expression results, only on
constant input values.

Don't know if ignoring that area makes things any easier for you...

- Tom

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas G. Lockhart 1998-06-01 06:29:55 Re: [HACKERS] Current sources?
Previous Message Thomas G. Lockhart 1998-06-01 06:15:33 Re: [HACKERS] duplicate oids in pg_proc