On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > On mån, 2010-10-18 at 15:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> > On mån, 2010-10-18 at 11:41 +0100, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: >> >> Paul Ramsey wrote: >> >> >> >> >> 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? >> >> > >> >> > P >> >> >> >> For my vote, I'd prefer either the Oid of a custom type or an array of >> >> Oid, Datum pairs - i.e. something we can extend in the future if required. >> > >> > I think if we really wanted to design this generally, we'd give a type >> > function arguments. So, numeric would get (int default = 0, int default >> > = 0). That can easily get very complicated, of course. >> > >> > In any case, for the shorter term, it's clear that refactoring the >> > passing around of type + typmod would help this endeavor, so I'm going >> > to give it a try. >> >> By "this endeavor" do you mean KNNGIST, or per-column collation? > > No, I was referring to the talk about a different/better/more flexible > typmod. Per-column collation could also benefit, as you have observed. > Frankly, I have no idea what knngist has to do with any of this, as I > haven't followed that topic at all.
Me neither, except for the fact that the PostGIS guys are interested in both things. I think this thread has been hijacked OT. -- 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
