Re: [HACKERS] Re: type coersion (was OR clause status)

> The first thing I want to try is to substitute the operator for types
> which are known to be binary-compatible and do not have their own index
> defined. The next step would be to substitute an operator _and_ insert
> an explicit type conversion using a function call (which may not work
> yet for other reasons). Don't know where Vadim's PARAM_EXEC node comes
> in, but if it does it might be around here.
>
> > ... if you can, do a fresh cvs update if you can, because the code is
> > a little cleaner now in that area. Particularly, the op_class()
> > parameters were badly named, causing me confusion.
>
> OK. Does the current source tree compile now? Haven't had much time to
> look at it the last few days, but will start poking at it this evening a
> bit.

Yep. Only been down for a few hours in the past month, at least for me.
I am working on another huge patch, but it will be tested before
install, of course.

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)