On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
>> We already have TypeName as a structure that contains type and typmod
>> (and collation, in my patch). We could make that a primnode instead of
>> a parsenode, and use it in more places, or we could make a new leaner
>> structure that only contains the numeric info.
>
> 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
hascaused us enough
heartache already. No?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
