On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 11:22:34AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> wrote: > > No, there's no need to do that. The domain "is" an array, not merely > > something > > that can be coerced to an array. Therefore, it can be chosen as the > > polymorphic > > type directly. Indeed, all released versions do this. > > Well, as Bill Clinton once said, "it depends on what the meaning of > the word 'is' is". I think of array types in PostgreSQL as meaning > "the types whose monikers end in a pair of square brackets". We don't > in general have the ability to create a type that behaves "like" > another type. In particular, you can't create a user-defined type > that "is" an array in the same way that a domain-over-array "is" an > array. If we had some kind of type interface facility that might be > possible, but we don't. > Early on in this thread, one of the users of domains-over-array-type mentioned that he really didn't want to use them that way, he'd be perfectly happy with array-over-domain: i.e.: mydomain[]. How does that impact all this at the rhetorical level under discussion?
Ross -- Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D. reeds...@rice.edu Systems Engineer & Admin, Research Scientist phone: 713-348-6166 Connexions http://cnx.org fax: 713-348-3665 Rice University MS-375, Houston, TX 77005 GPG Key fingerprint = F023 82C8 9B0E 2CC6 0D8E F888 D3AE 810E 88F0 BEDE -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
