On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> So we basically had three alternatives to make it better: >>> * downcast to the array type, which would possibly silently >>> break applications that were relying on the function result >>> being considered of the domain type >>> * re-apply domain checks on the function result, which would be >>> a performance hit and possibly again result in unobvious >>> breakage >>> * explicitly break it by throwing a parse error until you >>> downcast (and then upcast the function result if you want) >>> I realize that #3 is a bit unpleasant, but are either of the other two >>> better? At least #3 shows you where you need to check for problems. > >> Aren't any applications that would be broken by #1 broken already? > > My point is that doing #1 would break them *silently* --- if you did > have a problem, figuring out what it was could require a great deal > of sleuthing.
Eh, I'm confused. Explain further? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
