On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 02:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
We've only had domains for one release cycle, so it seems to me that
there's not a lot of track record to justify a "this is how we've
always
done it" position for domain-related behaviors. Especially when the
odds seem good that few people
John DeSoi writes:
> To me this seems completely wrong. The whole point of getting the
> domain is so that I can know how I should parse the result coming from
> the server. If I use a text domain, I can't distinguish the domain
> column from any other text column and perform some other kind of
>
John DeSoi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No hard feelings about it, but I'm really surprised existing behavior
> will be broken when the technical reasons for changing it were so weak.
We've only had domains for one release cycle, so it seems to me that
there's not a lot of track record to justi
On Thursday, June 26, 2003, at 11:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
By my count you're in the minority --- there was no one lobbying
for reporting domain OIDs in the previous threads, and at least
two people strongly in favor of not doing so. While I don't have
a strong opinion about it myself, I don't have
John DeSoi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> My vote would be to restore the previous behavior and add
> connection-specific setting for clients that need it.
By my count you're in the minority --- there was no one lobbying
for reporting domain OIDs in the previous threads, and at least
two people st
Tom,
Thanks for helping me find the previous discussion.
2) Better support for domains. Currently the jdbc driver is broken
with
regards to domains (although no one has reported this yet). The driver
will treat a datatype that is a domain as an unknown/unsupported
datatype. It would be great
John DeSoi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 10:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> No, 7.4 intentional change. If you want to argue that this was a bad
>> idea, it's not too late ... but see the archived discussions about it.
> Can you give me a pointer on where to find the arc
On Wednesday, June 25, 2003, at 10:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
No, 7.4 intentional change. If you want to argue that this was a bad
idea, it's not too late ... but see the archived discussions about it.
Hi Tom,
Can you give me a pointer on where to find the archived discussions? I
have tried all
John DeSoi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I created a domain with text as the data_type. When I get the row
> description message from the backend for a column using this domain,
> the type OID provided is for text (25) rather than the OID of the
> domain I created. I could have sworn I tested th
I created a domain with text as the data_type. When I get the row
description message from the backend for a column using this domain,
the type OID provided is for text (25) rather than the OID of the
domain I created. I could have sworn I tested this in 7.3.x and the OID
was for my domain. 7.4
10 matches
Mail list logo
