| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, Durumdara <durumdara(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Field size become unlimited in union... |
| Date: | 2016-05-03 15:30:59 |
| Message-ID: | 4409.1462289459@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> This seems to fail to answer the OPs question. Specifically, do these
> rules automatically, or at least if #1 is not true, cause typemod
> information to be lost? IOW, is it because of the unknown that both end up
> up-casted to typemod-less text?
Any mismatch of typmod will result in the merged column being considered
to have no typmod. There is no provision for identifying a "common
superset" typmod. It would have to be some type-specific API, since the
encoding of typmod is type-specific; and we don't have one.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Arthur Silva | 2016-05-03 15:58:46 | Re: arrays, inline to pointer |
| Previous Message | dandl | 2016-05-03 14:32:04 | Re: Does the initial postgres user have a password? |