On 03/31/2015 04:48 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
In view of that, you could certainly argue that if someone's bothered
to make a patch to add a new regFOO type, it's useful enough. I don't
want to end up with thirtysomething of them, but we don't seem to be
trending in that direction.
Or in short, objection withdrawn. (As to the concept, anyway.
I've not read the patch...)
The only possible issue I see on reading the patches is that these are
treated differently for dependencies than other regFOO types. Rather
than create a dependency if a value is used in a default expression, an
error is raised if one is found. Are we OK with that?
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
