Re: generic builtin functions

Tom Lane wrote:

>"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>What about having the calling code fill in the io type oid in an extra field
>>in the flinfo?
>>
>>
>
>I don't think that's workable; for one thing there's the problem of
>manual invocation of the I/O functions, which is not going to provide
>any such special hack. It also turns the enum proposal into a seriously
>invasive patch (hitting all PLs both inside and outside the core, for
>instance), at which point you'll start encountering some significant
>push-back.
>
>

Darn. I see that. Stuff like:

tmp = DatumGetCString(FunctionCall1(&(desc->arg_out_func[i]),
fcinfo->arg[i]));

At this stage I am probably going to go with your 64bit proposal, on the
ground that it will permit some progress, and in the possibly vain hope
that someone will have a flash of insight that will let us do it less
redundantly in future.

>BTW, you might want to think about what'd be involved in supporting
>arrays and domains over enums ...
>
>
>
>
>

Yeah. on my list.

cheers

andrew