Re: [HACKERS] Missing array support - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Joe Conway
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Missing array support
Date
Msg-id 3F00A629.8020905@joeconway.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Missing array support  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Missing array support
List pgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> If only ANYELEMENT and not ANYARRAY appears in a function declaration,
> then it can stand for any type, because only rule 2 applies.  (The
> difference from ANY is that multiple occurences of ANYELEMENT are all
> constrained to stand for the same type.)

Hmmm, I don't remember that nuance, hence the code deficiency. I'm
should be able to finish up the plpgsql hash table stuff in the next
couple of hours, then I'll get back to thinking about this one. Do I
have until midnite PDT, or EDT?

Joe


pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Missing array support
Next
From: Dave Cramer
Date:
Subject: Re: [JDBC] Allow setObject(x,y,Types.INTEGER) if y is Boolean &