Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 08:39:09AM +0200, Michael Paesold wrote:Tom Lane wrote:
>The other possible solution that comes to mind is to invent the notion >that a cast has a specific owner (which arguably it should have anyway) >and then say that "system casts" are those whose owner is the original >superuser.
Just my toughts: I believe it's better when cast selection does not depend
on the search_path. It seems dangerous for objects that you don't usually
qualify with a schema. With all other objects in schemas I can think of,
you can easily write the full-qualified name.
So I vote for the latter.
So casts created by the original superuser don't get dumped? That's not good IMHO.
Well perhaps there is an even better solution?
But yes, schema-qualifying casts seems weird: '123'::someschema.user_type
Is that even accepted by the grammar?
It's the type you qualify here, not the cast, isn't it?
Nevertheless don't only think about explicit casts. With implicit casts you will usually not write out a cast at all.
Best Regards,
Michael Paesold
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
