Andres Freund escribió:
> * Why must we not schema qualify system types
> (c.f. expand_jsonval_typename)? It seems to be perfectly sensible to
> me to just use pg_catalog there.
So, the reason for doing things this way is to handle cases like
"varchar(10)" being turned into "character varying"; and that name
requires that the typename NOT be schema-qualified, otherwise it fails.
But thinking about this again, I don't see a reason why this can't be
returned simply as pg_catalog.varchar(10); this should work fine on the
receiving end as well, and give the same result.
The other cases I'm worried about are types like bit(1) vs. unadorned
bit vs. double-quoted "bit", and "char", etc. I'm not sure I'm dealing
with them correctly right now. So even if by the above paragraph I
could make the is_system thingy go away, I might still need it to cover
Thanks for the review, I will post an updated version later after fixing
the other issues you mentioned plus adding support for more commands.
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: