On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 04:49:39PM -0500, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 01:52:32PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > > I'm not sure how important that concern is though, because it's hard to
> > > see how any such change wouldn't break existing cast implementation
> > > functions anyway. ?If the API for length-coercing cast functions
> > > changes, breaking their helper functions too hardly seems like an issue.
> > > Or are you saying you want to punt this whole proposal till after that
> > > happens? ?I had muttered something of the sort way upthread, but I
> > > didn't think anyone else thought that way.
> >
> > I've been thinking about this patch a little bit more and I'm coming
> > around to the viewpoint that we should mark this (and the successor
> > patches in the same series) Returned with Feedback, and revisit the
> > issue for 9.2.
>
> This is just.
One other thing: #7 does not depend on #3,4,5,6 or any design problems raised
thus far, so there's no need to treat it the same as that group.
