On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> are we going to put this warning in this release?
Done.
--
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
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Jaime Casanova
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Bruce Momjian writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> Well, if we apply this, it has the possibility
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:11 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian writes:
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas writes:
> Well, if we apply this, it has the possibility to break existing
> dumps.
>>
>> BTW, it occurs to me that w
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Robert Haas writes:
Well, if we apply this, it has the possibility to break existing
dumps.
>
> BTW, it occurs to me that we could dodge that objection, with much less
> work than Robert su
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas writes:
>>> Well, if we apply this, it has the possibility to break existing
>>> dumps.
BTW, it occurs to me that we could dodge that objection, with much less
work than Robert suggests, if we just made the message be a WARNING not
an ERROR.
Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> What happened to this patch for casts on domains from June?
>
> > Well, if we apply this, it has the possibility to break existing
> > dumps.
>
> There's also the question of whether there's rea
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> What happened to this patch for casts on domains from June?
> Well, if we apply this, it has the possibility to break existing
> dumps.
There's also the question of whether there's really much point.
The whole questi
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> David Fetter wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 03:39:39AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> > > On tis, 2011-05-17 at 14:11 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> > >> On Tue, May 17, 2011
David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 03:39:39AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > On tis, 2011-05-17 at 14:11 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> > >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Robert Haas
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Th
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Where are we on this?
Well, I don't know. We had a couple of different ideas on what to do
about it, and I'm not sure anyone was completely in love with any of
the available options.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.co
Where are we on this?
---
David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 03:39:39AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > On tis, 2011-05-17 at 14:11 -0500, Jaime Casa
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 03:39:39AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On tis, 2011-05-17 at 14:11 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Robert Haas
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > The more controversial question is w
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:39 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On tis, 2011-05-17 at 14:11 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> >
>>> > The more controversial question is what to do if someo
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tis, 2011-05-17 at 14:11 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> >
>> > The more controversial question is what to do if someone tries to
>> > create such a cast anyway. We could just ign
On tis, 2011-05-17 at 14:11 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Robert Haas 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,
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 3:11 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Robert Haas 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 E
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:29 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> we should probably try to agree on which
>> of the various options you mention makes most sense.
>
> well... my original patch only handle the simplest case, namely, try
> to make t
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Robert Haas 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 l
Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
we should probably try to agree on which
of the various options you mention makes most sense.
well... my original patch only handle the simplest case, namely, try
to make the cast that the user wants and if none is defi
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> we should probably try to agree on which
> of the various options you mention makes most sense.
>
well... my original patch only handle the simplest case, namely, try
to make the cast that the user wants and if none is defined fall to
the ba
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Jaime Casanova
>> wrote:
>>> still, we have a problem... because we are happily ignoring correctely
>>> created casts...
>>> at least, we should docu
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 9:01 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
>> still, we have a problem... because we are happily ignoring correctely
>> created casts...
>> at least, we should document that casts on domains are ignored and
>> that we should use th
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 7:43 PM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> still, we have a problem... because we are happily ignoring correctely
> created casts...
> at least, we should document that casts on domains are ignored and
> that we should use the base types instead, maybe even a warning or a
> notice wh
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> So let's think about some harder scenarios.
>
> Given two types T1 and T2, and two domains D1 over T1 and D2 over T2,
> and a cast from a value of type D1 to type D2, then:
>
ok. a few fair questions, thanks
> (1) If there is an implicit ca
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Jaime Casanova wrote:
> Obviously it should run the cast from timestamp to int, why it will
> run a cast from a domain?
So let's think about some harder scenarios.
Given two types T1 and T2, and two domains D1 over T1 and D2 over T2,
and a cast from a value of ty
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Darren Duncan wrote:
>
> ('1800-01-01 00:00:00'::timestamp)::int
>
> Now, since all values of a DOMAIN are also values of the base type the
> DOMAIN is defined as being a subset of, then the sub-expression within the
> parenthesis denotes a value that is both a ti
Jaime Casanova wrote:
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
First of all, what if "cast(timestamp as int)" was already defined? Which
cast then would you expect to be invoked here?
'1800-01-01 00:00:00'::int
i will expect an error in that case... what you're doing there is
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
>
> First of all, what if "cast(timestamp as int)" was already defined? Which
> cast then would you expect to be invoked here?
>
> '1800-01-01 00:00:00'::int
>
i will expect an error in that case... what you're doing there is
casting an "unk
- Original Message -
From: "Darren Duncan"
To: "Jaime Casanova"
Cc: "PostgreSQL-development"
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DOMAINs and CASTs
Darren Duncan wrote:
I think it would be best that the generic cast syntax only
Darren Duncan wrote:
I think it would be best that the generic cast syntax only be useable
for casts defined on the base type, and if you want a domain-specific
one you should use the function syntax such as your datetime2int().
That way it is easier for users to predict what behavior will occ
Jaime Casanova wrote:
If i create a DOMAIN an then want to create a CAST from that domain to
another type it gives an error.
Consider this example:
"""
create domain datetime as timestamp with time zone
check (value between '1753-01-01 00:00:00' and '-12-31 23:59:59');
create function dat
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jaime Casanova writes:
>> If i create a DOMAIN an then want to create a CAST from that domain to
>> another type it gives an error.
>
> It's *not* trivial to fix, at least not in a way that gives desirable
> behavior for more than the simplest ca
Jaime Casanova writes:
> If i create a DOMAIN an then want to create a CAST from that domain to
> another type it gives an error.
Yes. See previous discussions about that, e.g. these threads:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-05/msg00072.php
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-
33 matches
Mail list logo
