> The issue here is (once again) that we're overloading type oid 0
> ("opaque") to mean too many different, incompatible things. I've
> ranted about this before and will not repeat my previous remarks.
> The bottom line is that we need to eliminate "opaque" in favor of
> a set of pseudo-datatypes with different, crisply-defined semantics.
> We've had some discussions about it but no complete proposal has been
> made. Since eliminating "opaque" is going to break just about every
> extant user-defined datatype, I'm not in a hurry to do it until we
> can get it right the first time...
I guess if anyone were to make a complete proposal, it would have to be you
then methinks... Is it worth starting a thread about it at this stage? It
is a pretty serious problem.
Chris
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
