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 this case. 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 (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
