Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes:
> On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 17:36 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
>> FWIW, I am perfectly fine with duplicating the functions for now - I
>> just thought that that might not be the best way but I didn't (and
>> still don't) have a strong opinion.
> Could we just put 0 in for the functions' OID and have code elsewhere
> that errors "there is no input function for this type"?
That doesn't seem like much of an improvement to me: that would be
taking a catalog corruption condition and blessing it as a legitimate
state of affairs, thereby reducing our ability to detect problems.
One instance where it would create issues is that I'm pretty sure
pg_dump would get confused by such a type. Admittedly, pg_dump will
never try to dump the built-in pseudotypes, but do we really want them
handled so differently from user-definable types?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
