On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:46 PM, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > David Fetter wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 03:39:39AM -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: >> > On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 6:36 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> > > On tis, 2011-05-17 at 14:11 -0500, Jaime Casanova wrote: >> > >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:19 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > The more controversial question is what to do if someone tries to >> > >> > create such a cast anyway. ?We could just ignore that as we do now, or >> > >> > we could throw a NOTICE, WARNING, or ERROR. >> > >> >> > >> IMHO, not being an error per se but an implementation limitation i >> > >> would prefer to send a WARNING >> > > >> > > Implementation limitations are normally reported as errors. ?I don't see >> > > why it should be different here. >> > > >> > >> > ok, patch reports an error... do we want to backpatch this? if we want >> > to do so maybe we can backpatch as a warning >> >> Minor clarification attached. > > What happened to this patch for casts on domains from June?
Well, if we apply this, it has the possibility to break existing dumps. I think at a minimum if we're going to do this we need to also modify pg_dump not to dump any such useless casts that may exist in pre-9.2 databases, so that our usual advice to use the newer pg_dump will still work. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
