On mån, 2010-10-18 at 15:36 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@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.