| From: | Jaime Casanova <jaime(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: DOMAINs and CASTs |
| Date: | 2011-06-13 08:39:39 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTim5c7Z+6ZfO2VpbTmaytLzTvPiVNg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On tis, 2011-05-17 at 14:11 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >
>> > The more controversial question is what to do if someone tries to
>> > create such a cast anyway. We could just ignore that as we do now, or
>> > we could throw a NOTICE, WARNING, or ERROR.
>>
>> IMHO, not being an error per se but an implementation limitation i
>> would prefer to send a WARNING
>
> Implementation limitations are normally reported as errors. I don't see
> why it should be different here.
>
ok, patch reports an error... do we want to backpatch this? if we want
to do so maybe we can backpatch as a warning
--
Jaime Casanova www.2ndQuadrant.com
Professional PostgreSQL: Soporte 24x7 y capacitación
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| casts_on_domains.patch | text/x-patch | 1.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Urbański | 2011-06-13 08:48:39 | Re: pgbench--new transaction type |
| Previous Message | Florian Pflug | 2011-06-13 08:31:58 | Re: Boolean operators without commutators vs. ALL/ANY |