On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 11:22:34AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 1:14 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> > No, there's no need to do that. The domain "is" an array, not merely something
> > that can be coerced to an array. Therefore, it can be chosen as the polymorphic
> > type directly. Indeed, all released versions do this.
>
> Well, as Bill Clinton once said, "it depends on what the meaning of
> the word 'is' is". I think of array types in PostgreSQL as meaning
> "the types whose monikers end in a pair of square brackets". We don't
> in general have the ability to create a type that behaves "like"
> another type. In particular, you can't create a user-defined type
> that "is" an array in the same way that a domain-over-array "is" an
> array. If we had some kind of type interface facility that might be
> possible, but we don't.
>
Early on in this thread, one of the users of domains-over-array-type
mentioned that he really didn't want to use them that way, he'd be
perfectly happy with array-over-domain: i.e.: mydomain[]. How does that
impact all this at the rhetorical level under discussion?
Ross
--
Ross Reedstrom, Ph.D. reedstrm@rice.edu
Systems Engineer & Admin, Research Scientist phone: 713-348-6166
Connexions http://cnx.org fax: 713-348-3665
Rice University MS-375, Houston, TX 77005
GPG Key fingerprint = F023 82C8 9B0E 2CC6 0D8E F888 D3AE 810E 88F0 BEDE
