Re: [HACKERS] IS OF

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] IS OF
Date: 2003-08-08 22:45:32
Message-ID: 3F34280C.1080308@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
> In fact you could argue that our current behavior is *more* useful than
> what the spec says for polymorphics. You would not want the special
> case for NULLs, in most cases, I'd think. NULLs have perfectly well
> defined datatype.

That's actually exactly what I was thinking.

> However, it troubles me to be using a spec-defined syntax for a behavior
> that is not standard. I'd prefer to change the syntax if we are going
> to keep the behavior. That probably puts it in the "too late for 7.4"
> category. So I'm inclined to follow the path of leaving it undocumented
> for now, implementing a new syntax in 7.5, and documenting it under that
> syntax then.
>

Sounds good to me.

Thanks,

Joe

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Manfred Koizar 2003-08-08 23:18:55 Re: Correlation in cost_index()
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-08-08 22:38:49 Re: [HACKERS] IS OF

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Larry Rosenman 2003-08-08 23:56:45 UPDATED UnixWare Threads Patch.
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-08-08 22:38:49 Re: [HACKERS] IS OF