From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Richard Zetterberg <richard.zetterberg@googlemail.com>
cc: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>,
        pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Changing a varchar(7) domain into text directly in pg_type
In-reply-to: <CA+j-Ktbnuci7HZY0z9b04Uj50Qy1y8dmvj-zZo6vcnbAAEByaQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+j-KtY71coW3-fn5j87R4eKVoPfaA_98brZskWb3qWi=23Buw@mail.gmail.com> <4c1c0192-e4f1-4e13-8dae-bfd9bb1801c1@aklaver.com> <CA+j-Ktbnuci7HZY0z9b04Uj50Qy1y8dmvj-zZo6vcnbAAEByaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Richard Zetterberg <richard.zetterberg@googlemail.com>
	message dated "Wed, 28 May 2025 11:53:51 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1452426.1748442061.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2025 10:21:01 -0400
Message-ID: <1452427.1748442061@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1452427.1748442061%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Richard Zetterberg <richard.zetterberg@googlemail.com> writes:
> In my head, this change would be instant and postgres would carry on like
> nothing happened and that the domain always had the type `text`. Is this a
> fools errand? Or could it actually make sense in this situation?

Yeah, I think you can probably get away with this (especially since
you've already tested the effects in a throwaway database, IIUC).

The main thing people tend to forget when doing this sort of manual
catalog surgery is updating pg_depend and/or pg_shdepend.  But here
there's nothing to do.  Since both varchar and text are undroppable
built-in types, we don't bother to make dependencies on them.  And
you're not changing the domain's schema or owner, so its other
dependencies don't need to change.

			regards, tom lane