| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: regproc's lack of certainty is dangerous |
| Date: | 2003-03-13 01:30:07 |
| Message-ID: | 3E6FDF1F.2090701@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think that we can actually get away (from an implementation point of
> view) with a column containing arrays of different base types; array_out
> will still work AFAIR. It's an interesting question though how such a
> column could reasonably be declared. This ties into your recent
> investigations into polymorphic array functions, perhaps.
>
> Maybe "anyarray" shouldn't be quite so pseudo a pseudotype?
I was having similar thoughts when you first posted this, but I wasn't
sure you'd want to go there. I wonder what changes are required other
than promoting the typtype from a 'p' to a 'b' and the I/O functions to
array_out/array_in?
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-03-13 01:45:22 | Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-03-13 01:23:09 | Re: SQL99 ARRAY support proposal |