Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> TypeName per se is completely inappropriate for use beyond the first
>> stage of parsing, because it requires catalog lookups to make any sense
>> of. �I think the post-parsing representation should still start with a
>> type OID. �I can agree with replacing typmod with a struct, though.
> I think we should have both the type OID and the typmod in the struct.
> Carrying the type OID separately from the typmod has caused us enough
> heartache already. No?
I think that that would probably involve a whole lot more notational
busywork than just replacing typmod with something more complicated.
However, we're talking about breaking vast amounts of code in either
case, so maybe making it even vaster isn't a real consideration.
regards, tom lane
