Re: array support patch phase 1 patch

From: Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Patches (PostgreSQL)" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: array support patch phase 1 patch
Date: 2003-06-01 15:39:32
Message-ID: 3EDA1E34.4010300@joeconway.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
> That is surely not what you intended. The test must be whether arg1 and
> arg2 are (separately) coercible to the operator's two input types.
> Moreover, the test must not be symmetric, any more than
> IsBinaryCoercible is. You can coerce int[] to ANYARRAY but not vice
> versa.

Dooh! Yeah, I can see that now.

>
> A bigger problem is that I doubt this will actually work. Most of the
> places that call compatible_oper will then proceed to call the function
> from specialized code that does not bother with consing up an expression
> tree --- so a polymorphic function is going to fail anyway...

Well, not necessarily in the case of array_type-to-ANYARRAY. In that
case the element type information in the array itself gives the function
all the context it needs (if it looks there, which in the case of
array_eq at least it does). Maybe it makes sense to only allow the
array_type-to-ANYARRAY case?

Joe

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-06-01 16:03:08 Table-driven SHOW (was Re: Are we losing momentum?)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2003-06-01 15:10:53 Re: array support patch phase 1 patch