From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Macros for typtype (was Re: Arrays of Complex Types) |
Date: | 2007-04-01 07:50:07 |
Message-ID: | 8909.1175413807@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure we could rely on the behavior if we declared
>> pg_type.typtype as an enum type ... and if we don't, there's not
>> much point.
> I was thinking C enums:
> enum typtype_type {
> TYPTYPE_BASE = 'b',
> TYPTYPE_COMPOSITE = 'c',
> TYPTYPE_DOMAIN = 'd',
> TYPTYPE_ENUM = 'e',
> TYPTYPE_PSEUDO = 'p'
> };
> I'm not sure if this is better.
What bothers me about that is I don't think the C spec mandates the
representation width. If we could guarantee that enum typtype_type
was 1 byte I'd be all for it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-04-01 08:15:29 | Re: Macros for typtype (was Re: Arrays of Complex Types) |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-04-01 07:40:09 | Re: Macros for typtype (was Re: Arrays of Complex Types) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2007-04-01 07:57:35 | Re: bgwriter stats |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-04-01 07:40:09 | Re: Macros for typtype (was Re: Arrays of Complex Types) |