On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 9:46 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >>> OK. I was thinking that instead moving this into >>> eval_const_expressions(), we just make the logic in >>> find_coercion_pathway() call the "exemptor" function (or whatever we >>> call it) right around here: >> >> No, no, no, no. Didn't you read yesterday's discussion? parse_coerce >> is entirely the wrong place for this. > > I not only read it, I participated in it.
To put that another way, there's a difference between reading something and agreeing with it. I did the former, but not the latter. It seems to me that this discussion is unnecessarily antagonistic. Is it not OK for me to have a different idea about which way to go with something than you do? My personal view is that we ought to try to be increasing the number of places where type modifiers behave like they're really part of the type, rather than being an afterthought that we deal with when convenient and otherwise ignore. Otherwise, I see the chances of any substantive improvements in our type system as being just about zero. However, the larger point here is simply this: I'm trying to make some progress on reviewing and, where appropriate, committing the patches that were submitted for this CommitFest. I'd like to try to avoid the phenomenon where we're tripping over each other's feet. We're not making out very well on that front at the moment. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
