Re: proposal: regrole type?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: proposal: regrole type? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 23617.1356461872@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: proposal: regrole type? (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: proposal: regrole type?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes: > * We can reduce to half lot of functions \df has_* (84 functions) Not without breaking existing queries. A function taking regrole might look like it substitutes for one taking a text-string user name as long as you only pass literal constants to it, but as soon as you pass non-constants you'll find out different. (Unless your plan is to also create an implicit cast from text to regrole, which strikes me as a seriously bad idea.) The reason we've not been more aggressive about using the OID-alias pseudotypes is exactly that they're not a cure-all. Otherwise we would already have about a dozen more of them. I don't think it's really worth it: the notational savings is pretty marginal and the impact on application namespace should not be ignored. (Keep in mind that any new system type causes problems for similarly-named user tables.) regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: