Hi:
> If you use explicit cast, then the code should not be hard, in the > rewrite stage all information should be known. > Can you point to me where the code is for the XML stuff? I thought this is a bad idea but I may accept it if some existing code does such a thing already. "such thing" is typeA:typeB is converted something else but user can't find out an entry in pg_cast for typeA to typeB. > It would be cool but still I didn't see a way to do that without making >> something else complex. >> > > The custom @-> operator you can implement in your own custom extension. > Builtin solutions should be generic as it is possible. > I agree, but actually I think there is no clean way to do it, at least I dislike the conversion of typeA to typeB in a cast syntax but there is no entry in pg_cast for it. Are you saying something like this or I misunderstood you? > -- Best Regards Andy Fan
