| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Implicit casts with generic arrays |
| Date: | 2007-02-28 12:40:13 |
| Message-ID: | 200702281340.14303.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Am Dienstag, 27. Februar 2007 19:50 schrieb Tom Lane:
> Seems basically we'd want to not cast unknown to anyarray unless there
> is some additional bit of context suggesting that that's the right thing.
> But what should that extra requirement be? Can we go as far as not
> doing this cast implicitly at all?
We could say that unknown is not taken as anyarray input if the entire
function/operator argument list consists of anyelement or anyarray. But that
might be even harder to comprehend. With the ARRAY[...] syntax available,
converting unknown to anyarray might be altogether unnecessary.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2007-02-28 13:09:08 | Re: psql problem querying relations |
| Previous Message | Zoltan Boszormenyi | 2007-02-28 12:05:14 | Re: Final version of IDENTITY/GENERATED patch |