Re: regproc's lack of certainty is dangerous

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: regproc's lack of certainty is dangerous
Date: 2003-03-23 05:24:34
Message-ID: 28612.1048397074@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
>> I think that we can actually get away (from an implementation point of
>> view) with a column containing arrays of different base types; array_out
>> will still work AFAIR. It's an interesting question though how such a
>> column could reasonably be declared. This ties into your recent
>> investigations into polymorphic array functions, perhaps.
>>
>> Maybe "anyarray" shouldn't be quite so pseudo a pseudotype?

I have committed a fix for these problems that makes pg_statistic's
columns into "anyarray" columns. It turns out that my original concerns
about datatypes without associated array types don't matter --- we can
physically build such an array, regardless of whether we can point to a
pg_type entry that describes it.

This is certainly something of a kluge at the moment, because
pg_statistic is making use of facilities that don't exist at the SQL
level. It gets the job done, but I'd like to see some fuller support
for "anyarray" in future.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message ow 2003-03-23 13:21:19 Re: Case insensitivity, and option?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-03-23 02:24:42 Domain breakage