Re: [HACKERS] I think we need an explicit parsetree node for CAST

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] I think we need an explicit parsetree node for CAST
Date: 2000-01-16 04:22:42
Message-ID: 17946.947996562@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Actually, I think I never made the additional atttypmod changes because
> no one had ever reported a problem, and I was confused by that.

I think that after further discussion, we concluded that it wasn't
really possible to determine an atttypmod value to attach to the
result of most expressions. However, CAST is a special case because
there *is* a typmod value associated with the Typename node. The
thing I want to do is make sure we hold onto that value long enough
to use it...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-01-16 04:51:59 Re: [HACKERS] INDEX_MAX_KEYS and pg_dump
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-01-16 04:16:12 pg_dump not in very good shape