Tom Lane wrote:
> I think that we can actually get away (from an implementation point of
> view) with a column containing arrays of different base types; array_out
> will still work AFAIR. It's an interesting question though how such a
> column could reasonably be declared. This ties into your recent
> investigations into polymorphic array functions, perhaps.
>
> Maybe "anyarray" shouldn't be quite so pseudo a pseudotype?
I was having similar thoughts when you first posted this, but I wasn't
sure you'd want to go there. I wonder what changes are required other
than promoting the typtype from a 'p' to a 'b' and the I/O functions to
array_out/array_in?
Joe
