Tatsuo Ishii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Well, being able to switch to a different conversion is fine, but I don't
>> think that's a good argument for tying it to the schema search path.
> If it does work, then it's ok. However still I'm not sure why current
> method is evil.
Because with the current definition, any change in search_path really
ought to lead to repeating the lookup for the default conversion proc.
That's a bad idea from a performance point of view and I don't think
it's a particularly good idea from the definitional point of view
either --- do you really want the client conversion changing because
some function altered the search path?
> BTW, what does the standard say about conversion vs. schema? Doesn't
> conversion belong to schema? If so, then schema specific default
> conversion seems more standard-friendly way.
AFAICT we invented the entire concept of conversions ourselves. I see
nothing about CREATE CONVERSION in the SQL spec. There is a CREATE
TRANSLATION in SQL2003, which we'd probably not seen when we invented
CREATE CONVERSION, but it does *not* have a DEFAULT clause. I don't
think you can point to the spec to defend our current method of
selecting which conversion to use.
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
