On Tue, 2002-08-20 at 16:46, Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote: > > >>> Hard to say what is good for those names imho, don't like > > >>> "anytype" :-( > > >> > > >> How about "any"? It's a reserved word per SQL99, I think. > > > > > I would actually stick to opaque in that case, already used in other db's. > > > > I want to change the name because (a) we are changing the semantics, > > (b) we can't throw notices for opaque if we keep it as a valid choice. > > Hmm, "any" would sound like it is the same as opaque. Would "any" really be > all allowed types ? I think we would want to eliminate that altogether.
Erm.. count(*) <- * is literally anything. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
