Good question. In my case they should be different until someone starts to
do operations with them.
For example: DECIMAL_1 extends DECIMAL(10, 3), DECIMAL_2 extends
DECIMAL(10,3) are different types, but when someone starts to use them
`1::DECIMAL_1 + 2::DECIMAL_2`, `1::DECIMAL_1 = 2::DECIMAL_2`
I’ve thought about adding annotations to (the internal representation of)
Calcite types. We never got very far with it. It would be tricky because we
canonize types, and so if you have two instances that represent, say,
DECIMAL(10, 3) with different annotations, are they the same type?
One
Hello!
I am working on emulating a Postgres server and am faced with the following
problem:
Postgres `pg_catalog` schema has custom types like `name`, those types can
be easily mapped to calcite basic types. The problem is that several types
in PG can be mapped to one calcite type (for example:
