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@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
