| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, lr(at)pcorp(dot)us |
| Subject: | Re: Domains versus polymorphic functions, redux |
| Date: | 2011-05-24 17:13:41 |
| Message-ID: | 11302.1306257221@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 1. If a domain type is passed to an ANYARRAY argument, automatically
>> downcast it to its base type (which of course had better then be an
>> array).
> Does that mean that plpgsql %type variable declarations will see the
> base type (and miss any constraint checks?).
No, this has nothing to do with %type. What's at stake is matching to
functions/operators that are declared to take ANYARRAY.
> #2a seems cleaner to me (superficially). Got an example of a behavior
> you think is changed?
See my response to David Wheeler.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ibrar Ahmed | 2011-05-24 17:21:42 | "errno" not set in case of "libm" functions (HPUX) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-05-24 17:11:59 | Re: Domains versus polymorphic functions, redux |