On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Paul Ramsey <pram...@cleverelephant.ca> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> On lör, 2010-10-16 at 09:23 -0700, Paul Ramsey wrote: >>> >> (And, if we are going to break everything >>> > in sight, now would be a good time to think about changing typmod to >>> > something more flexible than one int32.) >>> >>> As someone who is jamming geometry type, spatial reference number and >>> dimensionality into said 32bit typmod, let me say emphatically ... >>> Amen! >> >> So what kind of data structure would you like for a typmod? > > I'm a primitive enough beast that just having 64-bits would make me > happy. As a general matter though, a bytea?
Yeah. It strikes me that there are three main kinds of things people might want to represent: 1. An integer. e.g. for a numeric, precision or scale; for a varchar, length; for an array, number of dimensions. 2. An OID. e.g. for varchar or text, a collation OID. 3. Recursive structure. So you might have an array (which is one-dimensional) containing strings (which are limited to 80 characters and collated in Klingon). You want to hold onto all of those details somehow. There might be use cases for even crazier things - like packing all the field names and types for a record object in there... but maybe that's too crazy to be workable. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers