On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's possible that there are specific cases where the UNION optimization
> checks could allow domains to be treated as their base types, but
> blindly smashing both sides of the check to base is going to break more
> cases than it fixes.
What my
> "Tom" == Tom Lane writes:
> Andrew Gierth writes:
>> Type-dependent selection of operators has already been done as
>> part of parse analysis, no? And the domain -> base conversion is
>> purely a relabelling, no? So what semantic change is possible as a
>> result?
Tom> Domain conver
Andrew Gierth writes:
> Type-dependent selection of operators has already been done as part of
> parse analysis, no? And the domain -> base conversion is purely a
> relabelling, no? So what semantic change is possible as a result?
Domain conversions are *not* simply relabellings. It's possible n
