| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: updated hstore patch |
| Date: | 2009-09-21 17:50:44 |
| Message-ID: | 29C4B799-9D41-4F5E-85F9-594385DCB2CD@kineticode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sep 20, 2009, at 3:14 PM, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> I think you're missing the point here; I can't control what it
> resolves
> to, since that's the job of the function overload resolution code.
Yeah, but I think that the existing behavior is probably the best.
> But I checked, and delete(hstore,$1) still resolves to
> delete(hstore,text) when the type of $1 is not specified, so there's
> no compatibility issue there that I can see. (I'm not sure I
> understand _why_ it resolves to that rather than being ambiguous...)
Right, but it does seem like it might be the best choice for now. I'd
add a regression test to make sure it stays that way.
> David> So then it's negligible for new values?
>
> Yes. (One bit test, done inline)
Excellent, thanks.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-21 17:51:33 | Re: generic copy options |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2009-09-21 17:32:27 | Re: SELECT ... FOR UPDATE [WAIT integer | NOWAIT] for 8.5 |