> > Ok, now I vote, that you don't implement "any" and use "opaque". > > I don't think we want two types that do the same thing. > > Is it that you like the name "any" more than "opaque" ? > > No, it's that I want to deprecate "opaque" so that we can catch old > uses that should not be there anymore. If you look at your code and > you decide that "any" is the correct semantics, then fine: change > "opaque" to "any" and the warnings will go away. But relatively few > existing uses of "opaque" really mean "any", and I don't want the > people who are using "opaque" to mean "cstring", "trigger", etc > to keep using "opaque" for those other purposes. The idea here is > to force a security review.
That is what I have been trying to say, imho "any" should have the same NOTICE as opaque has, since it is potentially dangerous. I would suggest a warning NOTICE for opaque and not depricate it. Imho the NOTICE should *not* go away. If we want "any" in the future, it should imho always be passed a "safe" Datum that includes type info. This will allow us to create a type "any" that does not have the pitfalls of opaque. Andreas ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
