From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Macros for typtype (was Re: Arrays of Complex Types) |
Date: | 2007-04-01 20:18:57 |
Message-ID: | 200704012218.58449.peter_e@gmx.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> It seems clear to me that this authorizes, but *does not require*,
> the compiler to store an enum field in a byte or short instead of
> an int when all the declared values will fit. So if we tried to
> do this, we'd have the problem of needing compiler-specific data
> type information entered in pg_type.
FWIW, I never meant to suggest using enums tuple structures. I did,
however, stumble over a case that appears to be handled similar to what
I had in mind: see enum CoercionCodes in primnodes.h. Again, it's not
really important, but it's interesting to see that there is precedent.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-04-01 21:29:32 | Implicit casts to text |
Previous Message | korryd | 2007-04-01 19:56:27 | Re: Last minute mini-proposal (I know, Iknow)forPQexecf() |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2007-04-01 22:16:28 | Re: bgwriter stats |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-01 18:42:52 | Re: Current enums patch |