On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 02:11:39PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Maybe. ?But casts would be the least of our concerns if we were trying > > to change the column type. ?Changing typmod doesn't affect the set of > > operations that could be applied to a column, whereas changing type > > surely does. > > OK, this is the crucial point I was missing. Sorry for being a bit > fuzzy-headed about this. > > My mental model of our type system, or of what a type system ought to > do, just doesn't match the type system we've got. > > So let's do it the way you proposed.
Good deal. Given that conclusion, the other policy decision I anticipate affecting this particular patch is the choice of syntax. Presumably, it will be a new common_func_opt_item. When I last looked at the keywords list and tried to come up with something, these were the best I could do: CREATE FUNCTION ... PARSER MAPPING helperfunc(args) CREATE FUNCTION ... PLANS CONVERSION helperfunc(args) Both feel forced, to put it generously. Any better ideas? Worth adding a keyword to get something decent? Thanks, nm -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
