On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> My personal view is that we ought to try to be increasing the number >> of places where type modifiers behave like they're really part of the >> type, rather than being an afterthought that we deal with when >> convenient and otherwise ignore. > > And this argument is 100% irrelevant to the problem. The problem is > that you want to put an optimization into the wrong phase of processing. > That is going to hurt us, tomorrow if not today, and it has got *no* > redeeming social value in terms of beng more flexible about what typmods > are or how "well integrated" they are.
The only thing we're deciding here is whether or not a cast requires a function. That's a function of the type OIDs and the typemods. I don't see why it's wrong to do the portion that involves the types in the same place as the portion that involves the typemods. Perhaps you could explain. -- 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
