Re: [HACKERS] PostGIS Integration

2004-02-04 Thread strk
tgl wrote: > Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Those two cases are not hard, because in those scenarios the parser > >> knows it is expecting a type specification. The real problem is this > >> syntax for typed literals: > >> typename 'string' > > > Just disallow that parti

Re: [HACKERS] PostGIS Integration

2004-02-04 Thread Tom Lane
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Those two cases are not hard, because in those scenarios the parser >> knows it is expecting a type specification. The real problem is this >> syntax for typed literals: >> typename 'string' > Just disallow that particular case for custom typ

Re: [HACKERS] PostGIS Integration

2004-02-04 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
Those two cases are not hard, because in those scenarios the parser knows it is expecting a type specification. The real problem is this syntax for typed literals: typename 'string' which occurs in ordinary expressions. So when you see "name(" you aren't real sure if you're seeing

Re: [HACKERS] PostGIS Integration

2004-02-04 Thread Tom Lane
Christopher Kings-Lynne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I can't see any way to handle parameterized types without extending the >> grammar individually for each one --- otherwise it's too hard to tell >> them apart from function calls. > Disallow it in table definitions, but allow it in domain defi

Re: [HACKERS] PostGIS Integration

2004-02-04 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
I can't see any way to handle parameterized types without extending the grammar individually for each one --- otherwise it's too hard to tell them apart from function calls. That makes it a bit hard to do 'em as plug-ins :-(. The grammar hacks are certainly ugly though, and if someone could think

Re: [HACKERS] PostGIS Integration

2004-02-03 Thread Tom Lane
Paul Ramsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think we had this discussion before though, and the "parameterized" > types, like varchar(256), were not available for extended types, like > our geometries. I can't see any way to handle parameterized types without extending the grammar individually f

[HACKERS] PostGIS Integration

2004-02-03 Thread Paul Ramsey
Actually, in my wet dream, we stored everything in system tables. Dimensionality and SRID became parameters of the geometry, the selectivity stats lived in the system stats table (as Mark's patch should hopefully do) and the geometry_columns view just pulled everything together into one user-co