Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I don't mind having encoding conversions be named within schemas,
>> but I propose that any given encoding pair be allowed to have only
>> one default conversion, period, and that when we are looking for
>> a default conversion we find it by a non-namespace-aware search.
> That doesn't sound good idea to me.
What does it mean to have different "default" encoding conversions in
different schemas? Even if this had a sensible interpretation, I don't
think the existing code implements it properly.
> Then why do we have CREATE DEFAULT CONVERSION command at all?
So you can create the one you're allowed to have, of course ...
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
