On Tue, 2011-07-05 at 10:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > But if it's actually better, we should do it. If an intermediate type
> > seems to be problematic, or if people think it's strange to require
> > casting, then I think this is reasonable.
>
> I don't understand how the bespoke syntax avoids the need for a cast?
It doesn't, it just avoids the need for an intermediate type.
What I meant was that it might be strange to require a cast on the
result of a function call, because we don't really do that anywhere
else. Florian pointed out that it's common to require casting the
ARRAY[] constructor, so that has more of a precedent. I'm not really
sure how much that matters.
I'm OK with the intermediate type, but Florian seems skeptical of that
idea.
Regards,Jeff Davis
