From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Polymorphic types vs. domains |
Date: | 2009-01-20 17:08:55 |
Message-ID: | 200901201708.n0KH8uR03639@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Where are we on this? I tested CVS and the problem still seems to
exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Lane wrote:
> The proximate cause of this complaint:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2008-12/msg00283.php
> seems to be that the polymorphic-type code doesn't consider a domain
> over an enum type to match an ANYENUM function argument.
>
> ISTM this is probably wrong: we need such a domain to act like its base
> type for matching purposes. There is an analogous problem with a domain
> over an array type failing to match ANYARRAY; conversely, such a domain
> is considered to match ANYNONARRAY which it likely should not.
>
> Comments? If this is agreed to be a bug, should we consider
> back-patching it? (I'd vote not, I think, because the behavioral
> change could conceivably break some apps that work now.)
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-01-20 17:09:37 | Re: visibility maps |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-01-20 17:04:31 | Re: visibility maps and heap_prune |