Prev: Git: Unable to get pack file
Next: [HACKERS] failover vs. read only queries
From: Heikki Linnakangas on 30 Jun 2010 06:11
On 15/06/10 15:19, Florian Pflug wrote:
> On Jun 15, 2010, at 9:31 , Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> You could avoid changing the meaning of fn_expr by putting the check in the parse analysis phase, into transformFuncCall(). That would feel safer at least for back-branches.
>
> For 9.0, wouldn't a cleaner way to accomplish this be a seperate type for expressions, say pg_expr, instead of storing them as text? With an input function that unconditionally raises and error and no cast to pg_expr, creating new instances of that type would be impossible for normal users. The output function and casts to text would call pg_get_expr() with zero as the second argument.
>
> The internal representation wouldn't change, it's just the type's OID in the catalog that'd be different.

Yeah, that would be quite elegant. I think it's too late for 9.0, but
something to consider in the future.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(a)postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Git: Unable to get pack file
Next: [HACKERS] failover vs. read only queries