2015-08-20 2:22 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> writes: > >> Don't say "parse names for things other than tables". Only a minority > >> of the types of objects used in the database have names that meet this > >> specification. > > > Really? My impression is that almost everything that's not a shared > > object allows for a schema... > > Tables meet this naming spec. Columns, functions, operators, operator > classes/families, collations, constraints, and conversions do not (you > need more data to name them). Schemas, databases, languages, extensions, > and some other things also do not, because you need *less* data to name > them. Types also don't really meet this naming spec, because you need to > contend with special cases like "int[]" or "timestamp with time zone". > So this proposal doesn't seem very carefully thought-through to me, > or at least the use case is much narrower than it could be. > > Also, if "object does not exist" isn't supposed to be an error case, > what of "name is not correctly formatted"? It seems a bit arbitrary > to me to throw an error in one case but not the other. >
When I would to work with living object, then behave of cast to regclass is correct, but I can work with object, that will be created in future, and I need to take some other information about this future object - and then cast has to fail. Regards Pavel > > regards, tom lane >
