st 30. 1. 2019 v 17:00 odesÃlatel Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> napsal:
> > > po 28. 1. 2019 v 20:47 odesÃlatel Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> > napsal: > >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 7:21 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> > Anyway I think the names need to be any-something. >> >> To me, that seems unnecessarily rigid. Not a bad idea if we can come >> up with something that is otherwise acceptable. But all of your >> suggestions sound worse than Pavel's proposal, so... >> > > I implemented commontypenonarray, and commontyperange types. Now, a SQL > functions are supported too. > > The naming is same - I had not a better idea. But it can be changed > without any problems, if somebody come with some more acceptable. > > I don't think so the name is too important. The polymorphic types are > important, interesting for extension's developers what is small group of > Postgres users. > > And personally, I think so commontype and commontypearray are good enough > for not native speakers like me. But I am opened any variant - I think so > this functionality is interesting > and partially coverage one gap in our implementation of polymorphic types. > maybe "supertype". It is one char shorter .. somewhere is term "supperclass, ..." In Czech language this term is short, "nadtyp", but probably it is not acceptable :) > Regards > > Pavel > > > >> -- >> Robert Haas >> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com >> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >> >
