| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Oleg <serovOv(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #4688: Bug in cache. |
| Date: | 2009-03-04 12:13:32 |
| Message-ID: | 49AE706C.2020200@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> If we go down that path, how far do we go? We also know that two enums
>> are never binary-compatible, right? Composite type and a user-defined
>> base type? Hardly, unless you're doing something very hacky...
>
>> Disallowing binary casts when any composite types or enums are involved
>> seems sane, but that's as far as we can go with a few lines of code.
>
> Arrays have embedded type OIDs too ...
I've committed a simple check, disallowing composite types, enums and
arrays in binary casts.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Clark | 2009-03-04 15:42:50 | BUG #4691: Installation error |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Smet | 2009-03-04 10:57:17 | Re: BUG #4689: Expanding the length of a VARCHAR column should not induce a table rewrite |