2009/11/17 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes: >> 2009/11/17 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: >>> There are other issues but these are the ones I think we'd need to >>> resolve before not after putting in function typmods. It'd be >>> extremely painful and non-backwards-compatible to change our minds >>> later about function identity or coercion rules. > >> I am sure, so this patch cannot break any current code. > > My point is that if we release 8.5 with these semantics (which as far > as I can tell were not designed, but just fell out of what made for the > shortest patch) then we'll be stuck with them thereafter.
We could to talk about it now. We are not hurry. But I would to see some progress in this area in next two months. This patch is simple and doesn't create any new rules or doesn't change behave. Simply store explicitly defined typmod and use it. Nothing more. If you thing, so this is poor or problematic - please, show samples and use cases. Best regards Pavel Stehule > > regards, tom lane > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
