On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:21 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: > > Right, what I'm asking is whether or not we actually want that side > > effect in all cases, and specifically in this case where it's clearly > > not necessary. > > We could dodge that case by only changing the behavior when showstar is > false; there is no need to change it otherwise. The patch has assorted > other bugs too, in particular its schema-name treatment seems completely > wrong (hint: RelationIsVisible is not the same as TypeIsVisible, and > it's at best shaky to assume that a relation's name is the same as its > rowtype's name anyway). > > More generally, it seems rather inelegant to be forcibly adding a cast > when in most cases the existing notation is not wrong. AFAICS the > plain "relname" notation is only ambiguous if there is a column of the > same name as the relation. I wonder whether we should instead address > this by not letting the parser strip the "no op" cast in the first > place. > You mean that the parser should not strip the "no op" cast in all cases or in the case only when the parser somehow detects a column of the same name as the relation? > > regards, tom lane > -- Abbas EnterpriseDB Corporation The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
