"Rod Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would be fairly straight forward to simply copy the domain base
> type into the atttypid, then create an atttypdomain (normally 0,
> except in the case of a domain). Everything would use the attypid,
> except for \d and pg_dump which could use the do
> If we take the hard SQL99 line that domains *are* the base type plus
> constraints, then we could reduce domains to base types before we
start
> the entire matching process, and this issue would go away. This
would
> prevent declaring any specialized operators or functions for a
domain.
> (In f
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> If we take the hard SQL99 line that domains *are* the base type plus
> constraints, then we could reduce domains to base types before we start
> the entire matching process, and this issue would go away. This would
> prevent declaring any specialized operators or functions fo
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> We could treat exact and binary-compatible matches alike (doesn't seem
>> good), or put a special case into the operator selection rules to reduce
>> domains to their basetypes before making the "exact match" test.
> There could also be an explicit h
...
> The problem seems to be that when parse_func looks for "exact match"
> operators, it doesn't consider numeric to be an exact match for mydom.
> So that heuristic fails and we're left with no unique best choice for
> the operator.
Sure. At the moment there is no reason for parse_func to thin
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Any thoughts?
>
As we are talking about CAST,
if one CASTs to a domain, SQL99 says we have to check the constraints
and issue a "integrity constraint violation" if appropriate (6.22, GR 21).
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTE
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> (...) or put a special case into the operator selection rules to reduce
> domains to their basetypes before making the "exact match" test.
By definition,
which I believe should be read as
"A domain is a set of permissible values (of a data type)".
What I am trying to sa
I wrote:
> I am thinking that a non-broken approach would involve (1) treating
> a domain as binary-compatible with its base type, and therefore with
> all other domains on the same base type, and (2) allowing a coercion
> function that produces the base type to be used to produce the domain
> typ
> I am thinking that a non-broken approach would involve (1) treating
> a domain as binary-compatible with its base type, and therefore with
> all other domains on the same base type, and (2) allowing a coercion
> function that produces the base type to be used to produce the
domain
> type. (The
The DOMAIN patch is completely broken when it comes to type coercion
behavior. For one thing, it doesn't know that any operators or
functions on a domain's base type can be used with a domain:
domain=# create domain zip as char(2);
CREATE
domain=# create table foo (f1 zip);
CREATE
domain=# selec
10 matches
Mail list logo
