On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 9:55 AM Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > I thought about this some more. I think we could get rid of > attusertypmod and just hardcode it as -1. The idea would be that if you > ask for an encrypted column of type, say, varchar(500), the server isn't > able to enforce that anyway, so we could just prohibit specifying a > nondefault typmod for encrypted columns. > > I'm not sure if there are weird types that use typmods in some way where > this wouldn't work. But so far I could not think of anything. > > I'll look into this some more.
I thought we often treated atttypid, atttypmod, and attcollation as a trio, these days. It seems a bit surprising that you'd end up adding columns for two out of the three. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
