Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 693A01337B71 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:12:51 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 95732-07 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 20:12:44 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2D171336705 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:12:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o9TKCgVj008217; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:12:42 -0400 (EDT) To: "Kevin Grittner" cc: "Robert Haas" , pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org, "Jon Nelson" Subject: Re: [PERFORM] typoed column name, but postgres didn't grump In-reply-to: <4CCADE440200002500036FB2@gw.wicourts.gov> References: <4480.1288374498@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4CCACE6E0200002500036F95@gw.wicourts.gov> <6240.1288379246@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4CCADE440200002500036FB2@gw.wicourts.gov> Comments: In-reply-to "Kevin Grittner" message dated "Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:46:28 -0500" Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:12:42 -0400 Message-ID: <8216.1288383162@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-5 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201010/270 X-Sequence-Number: 28560 "Kevin Grittner" writes: > Robert Haas wrote: >>> I think if I had to pick a proposal, I'd say we should disable #2 >>> for the specific case of casting a composite type to something >>> else. >> Well, then let's do that. It's not the exact fix I'd pick, but >> it's clearly better than nothing, so I'm willing to sign on to it >> as a compromise position. > So, I'd rather scrap #2 entirely; but if that really would break > much working code, +1 for ignoring it when it would cast a composite > to something else. Well, assuming for the sake of argument that we have consensus on fixing it like that, is this something we should just do in HEAD, or should we back-patch into 8.4 and 9.0? We'll be hearing about it nigh indefinitely if we don't, but on the other hand this isn't the kind of thing we like to change in released branches. regards, tom lane