On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 01:28:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:12:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> This is a consequence of the changes I made to fix bug #5717, > >> particularly the issues around ANYARRAY matching discussed here: > >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg01545.php > > > We discussed this a few weeks ago: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20110511093217.gb26...@tornado.gateway.2wire.net > > > What's to recommend #1 over what I proposed then? Seems like a discard of > > functionality for little benefit. > > I am unwilling to commit to making #2 work, especially not under time > constraints; and you apparently aren't either, since you haven't > produced the patch you alluded to at the end of that thread.
I took your lack of any response as non-acceptance of the plan I outlined. Alas, the wrong conclusion. I'll send a patch this week. > Even if > you had, though, I'd have no confidence that all holes of the sort had > been closed. What you're proposing is to ratchet up the implementation > requirements for every PL and and every C function declared to accept > polymorphic types, and there are a lot of members of both classes that > we don't control. True. I will not give you that confidence. Those omissions would have to remain bugs to be fixed as they're found. nm -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
