From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: array support patch phase 1 patch |
Date: | 2003-06-01 15:39:32 |
Message-ID: | 3EDA1E34.4010300@joeconway.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> That is surely not what you intended. The test must be whether arg1 and
> arg2 are (separately) coercible to the operator's two input types.
> Moreover, the test must not be symmetric, any more than
> IsBinaryCoercible is. You can coerce int[] to ANYARRAY but not vice
> versa.
Dooh! Yeah, I can see that now.
>
> A bigger problem is that I doubt this will actually work. Most of the
> places that call compatible_oper will then proceed to call the function
> from specialized code that does not bother with consing up an expression
> tree --- so a polymorphic function is going to fail anyway...
Well, not necessarily in the case of array_type-to-ANYARRAY. In that
case the element type information in the array itself gives the function
all the context it needs (if it looks there, which in the case of
array_eq at least it does). Maybe it makes sense to only allow the
array_type-to-ANYARRAY case?
Joe
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-01 16:03:08 | Table-driven SHOW (was Re: Are we losing momentum?) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-06-01 15:10:53 | Re: array support patch phase 1 patch |