Tom Lane wrote:
> In fact you could argue that our current behavior is *more* useful than
> what the spec says for polymorphics. You would not want the special
> case for NULLs, in most cases, I'd think. NULLs have perfectly well
> defined datatype.
That's actually exactly what I was thinking.
> However, it troubles me to be using a spec-defined syntax for a behavior
> that is not standard. I'd prefer to change the syntax if we are going
> to keep the behavior. That probably puts it in the "too late for 7.4"
> category. So I'm inclined to follow the path of leaving it undocumented
> for now, implementing a new syntax in 7.5, and documenting it under that
> syntax then.
>
Sounds good to me.
Thanks,
Joe
