On 18 Jul 2012, at 16:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alban Hertroys writes:
>> On 18 Jul 2012, at 5:08, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I wonder whether we could improve this by postponing the no-shell-types
>>> check from creation to function runtime.
>
>> I don't suppose it'd be possible to treat it as a deferred
On 07/17/2012 08:08 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I wonder whether we could improve this by postponing the no-shell-types
check from creation to function runtime. It would be annoying to have
to make an additional catalog lookup at runtime just for typisdefined,
but I think that probably we could fold it
Alban Hertroys writes:
> On 18 Jul 2012, at 5:08, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wonder whether we could improve this by postponing the no-shell-types
>> check from creation to function runtime.
> I don't suppose it'd be possible to treat it as a deferred constraint? Then
> the check would be moved to the
On 18 Jul 2012, at 5:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Scott Bailey writes:
>> I'm trying to create a discrete range type and I'm having trouble with
>> the canonical function.
> I wonder whether we could improve this by postponing the no-shell-types
> check from creation to function runtime. It would be
Scott Bailey writes:
> I'm trying to create a discrete range type and I'm having trouble with
> the canonical function.
Yeah, right now you really can't write canonical functions in anything
except C, for which we don't enforce the no-shell-types restriction.
Before range types, this wasn't a b
