On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@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 <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.
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