Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > On 2/17/24 01:57, jian he wrote: >> On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 2:16 AM Tomas Vondra >> <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> 1) We already have pg_typeof() function, so maybe we should use a >>> similar naming convention pg_basetypeof()?
>> I am ok with pg_basetypeof. > An alternative approach would be modifying pg_typeof() to optionally > determine the base type, depending on a new argument which would default > to "false" (i.e. the current behavior). Forgive me for not having read the thread, but I wonder why we want this to duplicate the functionality of pg_typeof() at all. My first reaction to the requirement given in the thread subject is to write a function that takes a type OID and returns another type OID (or the same OID, if it's not a domain). If you want to determine the base type of some namable object, you could combine the functions like "basetypeof(pg_typeof(x))". But ISTM there are other use cases where you'd have a type OID. Then having to construct an object to apply a pg_typeof-like function to would be difficult. I don't have an immediate proposal for exactly what to call such a function, but naming it by analogy to pg_typeof would be questionable. regards, tom lane