Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types
Date: 2009-09-08 17:15:59
Message-ID: 13499.1252430159@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> writes:
> On Sep 8, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Intentionally so, because there's not a whole lot you can *do* with an
>> ANY parameter, other than checking it for null. Perhaps the real
>> question is about what semantics you're expecting for these
>> unconstrained parameters.

> For my purposes, I guess implicit casting for comparing values, as in

> arg_a IS DISTINCT FROM arg_b

Surely you'd want arg_a and arg_b constrained to the same type,
otherwise there is no certainty that that means anything at all.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2009-09-08 17:19:36 Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2009-09-08 17:11:11 Re: RfD: more powerful "any" types