On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 01:28:38PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:12:55PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> This is a consequence of the changes I made to fix bug #5717,
> >> particularly the issues around ANYARRAY matching discussed here:
> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-10/msg01545.php
>
> > We discussed this a few weeks ago:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20110511093217.GB26552@tornado.gateway.2wire.net
>
> > What's to recommend #1 over what I proposed then? Seems like a discard of
> > functionality for little benefit.
>
> I am unwilling to commit to making #2 work, especially not under time
> constraints; and you apparently aren't either, since you haven't
> produced the patch you alluded to at the end of that thread.
I took your lack of any response as non-acceptance of the plan I outlined.
Alas, the wrong conclusion. I'll send a patch this week.
> Even if
> you had, though, I'd have no confidence that all holes of the sort had
> been closed. What you're proposing is to ratchet up the implementation
> requirements for every PL and and every C function declared to accept
> polymorphic types, and there are a lot of members of both classes that
> we don't control.
True. I will not give you that confidence. Those omissions would have to
remain bugs to be fixed as they're found.
nm
