On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 04:49:39PM -0500, Noah Misch wrote: > On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 01:52:32PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > > I'm not sure how important that concern is though, because it's hard to > > > see how any such change wouldn't break existing cast implementation > > > functions anyway. ?If the API for length-coercing cast functions > > > changes, breaking their helper functions too hardly seems like an issue. > > > Or are you saying you want to punt this whole proposal till after that > > > happens? ?I had muttered something of the sort way upthread, but I > > > didn't think anyone else thought that way. > > > > I've been thinking about this patch a little bit more and I'm coming > > around to the viewpoint that we should mark this (and the successor > > patches in the same series) Returned with Feedback, and revisit the > > issue for 9.2. > > This is just.
One other thing: #7 does not depend on #3,4,5,6 or any design problems raised thus far, so there's no need to treat it the same as that group. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers