| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types |
| Date: | 2009-09-09 17:22:30 |
| Message-ID: | 3453.1252516950@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Sep 9, 2009, at 10:15 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> But here, "any" would work perfectly fine, since there's no need for
>> any two arguments to be tied to each other or the result.
> Well, only if you write your functions in C. I'd like to be able to
> write sprintf() in PL/pgSQL. Or PL/Perl, for that matter.
I think you're confusing the point with a secondary issue, which is what
access we provide to these pseudotypes in PLs. To write sprintf in a
PL, you'd at least need the ability to cast "any" to text. I guess you
can do that with anyelement, though, so maybe there is nothing much here
except an overly restrictive safety check.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-09-09 17:24:23 | Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-09 17:17:40 | Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types |