On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> writes: >> We already have TypeName as a structure that contains type and typmod >> (and collation, in my patch). We could make that a primnode instead of >> a parsenode, and use it in more places, or we could make a new leaner >> structure that only contains the numeric info. > > TypeName per se is completely inappropriate for use beyond the first > stage of parsing, because it requires catalog lookups to make any sense > of. I think the post-parsing representation should still start with a > type OID. I can agree with replacing typmod with a struct, though.
I think we should have both the type OID and the typmod in the struct. Carrying the type OID separately from the typmod has caused us enough heartache already. No? -- 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
