Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Unless you're going to allow them to create new C functions, I'm not >> clear on how much they're going to be able to change the semantics.
> Well there's plenty that can be done just using text or bytea as > representations. citext, or uuid for example. For the sort of look-ma-no-C programming that you seem to be envisioning, I don't think that real base types are appropriate at all. What might make sense is to handle it as a domain over some suitably-generic base type. The thing we'd have to fix to make that work is the way that the ambiguous-function resolution rules discriminate against functions that're declared to take domains. Which is hard, but it seems a lot less likely to lead to weird security risks than letting untrusted users mess with the details of base-type operations. Elein was going to go off in a corner and think about how to make that work better, but I dunno if she's gotten anywhere yet. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers