On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:38:41PM +0200, Michael Paesold wrote: > Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > >On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 08:39:09AM +0200, Michael Paesold wrote: > >>Tom Lane wrote: > > > >>>The other possible solution that comes to mind is to invent the > >>>notion that a cast has a specific owner (which arguably it should > >>>have anyway) and then say that "system casts" are those whose owner > >>>is the original superuser. > >> > >>Just my toughts: I believe it's better when cast selection does not > >>depend on the search_path. It seems dangerous for objects that you > >>don't usually qualify with a schema. With all other objects in > >>schemas I can think of, you can easily write the full-qualified > >>name. > >> > >>So I vote for the latter. > > > >So casts created by the original superuser don't get dumped? That's > >not good IMHO. > > Well perhaps there is an even better solution?
What about the simple one of having a bool "pg_cast.castissystem" column, or something similar? > >But yes, schema-qualifying casts seems weird: > >'123'::someschema.user_type > > > >Is that even accepted by the grammar? > > It's the type you qualify here, not the cast, isn't it? Yes, sorry. I'm low on caffeine apparently. Point on implicit casts taken too. -- Alvaro Herrera (<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) "I personally became interested in Linux while I was dating an English major who wouldn't know an operating system if it walked up and bit him." (Val Henson) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
