Questions on domain on composite / casts ignoring domains

[Jim Nasby]

I'm trying to create what amounts to a new type. This would be rather easy if I could perform a CHECK on a composite type, which I could do if I could create a domain on top of a composite. Is there any reason in particular that hasn't been done?

As an alternative, I tried accomplishing this with a straight domain. That would work, except for this:

WARNING: cast will be ignored because the source data type is a domain

Why do we ignore casts from domains to other data types? I'm guessing because it's simply not what domains were meant for?

[David G Johnston]

Post by Jim Nasby
I'm trying to create what amounts to a new type. This would be rather easy
if I could perform a CHECK on a composite type, which I could do if I
could create a domain on top of a composite. Is there any reason in
particular that hasn't been done?
As an alternative, I tried accomplishing this with a straight domain. That
WARNING: cast will be ignored because the source data type is a domain
Why do we ignore casts from domains to other data types? I'm guessing
because it's simply not what domains were meant for?

A domain is a base type with a constraint. When you cast you already know
the existing value is valid and the system simply uses the cast available
for the base type instead. i.e., You cannot have a domain with a different
cast rule than the base type over which it is defined.

Likely the lack of capability is simply a matter of complexity in the face
of somewhat uncommon usage and limited resources.

David J.




--
View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Questions-on-domain-on-composite-casts-ignoring-domains-tp5823745p5823763.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.