"David E. Wheeler" <da...@kineticode.com> writes:
> On May 24, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I guess that the question that's immediately at hand is sort of a
>> variant of that, because using a polymorphic function declared to take
>> ANYARRAY on a domain-over-array really is using a portion of the base
>> type's functionality. What we've learned from bug #5717 and the
>> subsequent issues is that using that base functionality without
>> immediately abandoning the notion that the domain has some life of its
>> own (ie, immediately casting to the base type) is harder than it looks.
> Well, in the ANYELEMENT context (or ANYARRAY), what could be lost by
> "abandoning the notion that the domain has some life of its own"?
I'm starting to think that maybe we should separate the two cases after
all. If we force a downcast for ANYARRAY matching, we will fix the loss
of functionality induced by the bug #5717 patch, and it doesn't seem
like anyone has a serious objection to that. What to do for ANYELEMENT
seems to be a bit more controversial, and at least some of the proposals
aren't reasonable to do in 9.1 at this stage. Maybe we should just
leave ANYELEMENT as-is for the moment, and reconsider that issue later?
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
