Re: Add pg_basetype() function to obtain a DOMAIN base type
От | jian he |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Add pg_basetype() function to obtain a DOMAIN base type |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CACJufxGj6s7qT-Jkk-CEoS4m4MD4=6_v7w8Z+fJunCFVH1rD=Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Add pg_basetype() function to obtain a DOMAIN base type (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Add pg_basetype() function to obtain a DOMAIN base type
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 2:16 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 1/2/24 01:00, jian he wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 5:11 PM John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 12:22 AM Alexander Korotkov > >> <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> The one thing triggering my perfectionism is that the patch does two > >>> syscache lookups instead of one. > >> > >> For an admin function used interactively, I'm not sure why that > >> matters? Or do you see another use case? > > > > I did a minor refactor based on v1-0001. > > I think pg_basetype should stay at "9.26.4. System Catalog Information > > Functions". > > So I placed it before pg_char_to_encoding. > > Now functions listed on "Table 9.73. System Catalog Information > > Functions" will look like alphabetical ordering. > > I slightly changed the src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat. > > now it looks like very similar to pg_typeof > > > > src6=# \df pg_typeof > > List of functions > > Schema | Name | Result data type | Argument data types | Type > > ------------+-----------+------------------+---------------------+------ > > pg_catalog | pg_typeof | regtype | "any" | func > > (1 row) > > > > src6=# \df pg_basetype > > List of functions > > Schema | Name | Result data type | Argument data types | Type > > ------------+-------------+------------------+---------------------+------ > > pg_catalog | pg_basetype | regtype | "any" | func > > (1 row) > > > > v2-0001 is as is in the first email thread, 0002 is my changes based on v2-0001. > > > I think the patch(es) look reasonable, so just a couple minor comments. > > 1) We already have pg_typeof() function, so maybe we should use a > similar naming convention pg_basetypeof()? > I am ok with pg_basetypeof.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: