On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 16:30, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes: >> Excerpts from Magnus Hagander's message of mar dic 28 10:46:31 -0300 2010: >>> Well, yeah, that was obvious ;) The question is, how much do we prefer >>> the more elegant method? ;) > >> If we go the new type route, do we need it to have an implicit cast to >> text, for backwards compatibility? > > I'd argue not. Probably all existing uses are just selecting the > function value. What comes back to the client will just be the text > form anyway.
That's certainly the only thing I've seen. > I'm of the opinion that a new type isn't worth the work, myself, > but it would mostly be up to whoever was doing the work. Fair enough - at least enough people have said it won't be rejected because it's done as a function rather than a datatype - so that seems like the easiest way to proceed. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
