Re: [HACKERS] Missing array support

Tom Lane wrote:
> In the second case (where you know actual argument type at a different
> position) you must know whether the other position's declared type is
> anyarray or anyelement, and you can't assume it's the same as the one at
> the position you want to resolve.

I still don't understand why that's needed (but perhaps it's related to
your comment below).

> It can also incorrectly replace an arraytype by its element type
> ("ANYELEMENT" doesn't require the actual type to not be an array

Are you referring to ANYELEMENT actually being an array at runtime?
That's the first time I've heard that concept. 'Til now, I've been
working with the assumption that arrays and elements were distinct, and
one can imply the other.

> --- unless
> "ANYARRAY" is also used in the same declaration, and even then
> it's only going to fail because we don't support arrays of arrays).

But this is the least of our problems when/if we support arrays of
arrays. The notion of element types being distinct from array types goes
pretty deep currently.

In any case, can you suggest concrete changes I can work on between now
and tonight? Or can this go in before the freeze as-is and get adjusted
afterwards?

Joe