Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> I have a vague feeling that the code for dumping casts and/or transforms >> may have some assumptions that the underlying function is also being >> dumped. Although maybe the assumption was really only what's fixed here, >> ie that there be a DumpableObject for the function. Anyway, take a close >> look for that.
> I'll look around and see, though my hunch is that, at some point, we > were just pulling all functions and then an optimization was added to > exclude pg_catalog and no one noticed that it broke casts using built-in > functions. Nah, that's historical revisionism --- the exclusion for system functions is very ancient. It certainly predates transforms altogether, and probably predates the cast-dumping code in anything like its current form. I think the expectation was that casts using built-in functions were also built-in and so needn't be dumped. There may be a comment about it somewhere, which would need to be revised now. (Actually, the most likely way in which this would break things is if it started causing built-in casts to get dumped ... have you checked?) regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers