Jefffrey commented on PR #17531: URL: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/pull/17531#issuecomment-3294613301
> I realized we may get away without introducing a generic type concept. The existing `TypeSignature::Coercible`'s `TypeSignatureClass` seems to be more or less it. did you try to use it? > > cc @jayzhan211 As it currently is I don't think it can support this case without modification. Types in `TypeSignatureClass` don't include anything for binary: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/blob/685f5d6c07868c8e47d6ffd11fb8134ca6aa405d/datafusion/expr-common/src/signature.rs#L259-L269 In `NativeType`, `Binary` is a distinct type from `FixedSizeBinary` which still requires an explicit size: https://github.com/apache/datafusion/blob/685f5d6c07868c8e47d6ffd11fb8134ca6aa405d/datafusion/common/src/types/native.rs#L146-L150 I suppose I could modify this `FixedSizeBinary` to make the size an `Option` where `None` represents "any" size, instead of doing this invalid negative size hack; would that be preferable? As an aside I believe decimal would have the same problem, in that it's not possible to define a signature that accepts decimals of any precision/scale unless you do it as user defined (numeric is possible but it's not limited to decimals only), so would be nice if we could solve that too 🤔 -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: github-unsubscr...@datafusion.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: github-h...@datafusion.apache.org
