Re: Domains versus polymorphic functions, redux
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: "David E. Wheeler" <david@kineticode.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, lr@pcorp.us
Date: 2011-06-02T20:44:00Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> I'm starting to think that maybe we should separate the two cases after >> all. If we force a downcast for ANYARRAY matching, we will fix the loss >> of functionality induced by the bug #5717 patch, and it doesn't seem >> like anyone has a serious objection to that. What to do for ANYELEMENT >> seems to be a bit more controversial, and at least some of the proposals >> aren't reasonable to do in 9.1 at this stage. Maybe we should just >> leave ANYELEMENT as-is for the moment, and reconsider that issue later? > If we haven't lost any functionality with respect to ANYELEMENT in > 9.1, then I don't think we ought to try to improve/change/break it in > 9.1 either. But I do think we need to do something about ANYARRAY > matching, and your proposed fix seems pretty reasonable to me. Yeah, the thread seems to have died off without anyone having a better idea. I'll see about making this happen. regards, tom lane