On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 07:16:13PM +0100, Jim Nasby wrote: > On Mar 25, 2006, at 4:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > >"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 10:49:00PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >>>I think we've got that one actually. It's domains as PL-function > >>>output > >>>types that aren't checked. Also plpgsql fails to enforce domain > >>>checks > >>>on its local variables. > > > >>So is this the complete list? > > > >No, I don't think so. IIRC we're also missing domain checks on > >parameter values in Bind messages, and there might be some other > >holes too. See the archives. > > > >I made a suggestion about closing all these holes at once by > >integrating domain checking into the I/O functions for domains, > >but it's not clear how to do that without a big performance hit. > > Performance hit on just domain handling or overall? Personally, I'd > rather see a hit on domain handling that we can work on later rather > than the current state of things which seems to smack of MySQL (Get > the feature 'checked off the list' first, then worry about doing it > the right way).
The three issues I've raised regard the type behavior of domains with operators and are completely independent of the input/output checks issues. But I like the idea of centralizing the check in the input/output functions. It seems clearer and cleaner. The procedural language checks are harder, but may be easier to implement if there were a centralized check domain functionality. --elein > -- > Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 > vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
